Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Air Transport

Shailesh Vara: What plans he has to upgrade the troop-carrying capacity of the Royal Air Force.

Adam Ingram: Before I start, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our sincere condolences to the friends and families of Lieutenant Tom Tanswell of 12 Regiment Royal Artillery, who died in Iraq last week, and those of Marine Gary Wright of 45 Commando Royal Marines, who died in Afghanistan the week before.
	The RAF's fixed wing troop-carrying capability is provided by a mix of RAF aircraft and, when required, by civilian chartered aircraft, which are used during times of peak tasking. We are planning to enhance the RAF's strategic troop-carrying and air tanker capability, currently provided by the VC10 and Tristar aircraft, with the future strategic tanker aircraft. We are also enhancing tactical troop-carrying capability with the procurement of 25 A400M aircraft.

Shailesh Vara: May I first associate myself with the Minister's comments with regard to the two very brave men who lost their lives? Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families and loved ones.
	Is it true that owing to a lack of RAF capacity as regards transport those who are serving on the front line and wish to come home for leave sometimes have to wait days before they can do so? Does it not add insult to injury that those men should have that time deducted from their leave? I should be most grateful for the Minister's comments.

Adam Ingram: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are men and women. There is an issue relating to the reliability of the operational bridge to Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why the RAF tries to make it its highest priority. We regret any disruption that those air bridge difficulties may have caused to the plans of personnel. I was recently in correspondence with one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, who as a serving Territorial Army officer experienced significant difficulties in Cyprus. We have dealt with that. Today I wrote to respond to all the detailed questions that he raised in his letter. He is not in the House today; I understand that he is in Cyprus with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It would be useful if that correspondence were placed in the Library to make all the details available.

David Laws: What action is the Minister taking to deal with the shortage of helicopter lift capability? In particular, given the excellent performance of the Merlin helicopters in Iraq and elsewhere, is he considering the possibility of an early procurement decision to increase the number of Merlin helicopters available in the early part of next year?

Adam Ingram: I am inclined to say that there is not the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes. We have looked into this. Commanders are not asking for more helicopters. The hon. Gentleman looks quizzical. I understand that he may want to get business for his constituency, but we have to listen to what is required on the ground. We have asked for a full review of the situation and we are trying to see whether any remedial action can be taken in sufficient time to deal with any such matters that may have arisen, are arising, or may arise in future. This is all under review, and it is too early to say what the conclusions may be.

James Gray: The Hercules aircraft based at RAF Lyneham in my constituency is the workhorse of the air bridge with Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Minister knows, one of the conclusions of the Government's inquiry into the tragic crash of the Hercules in Iraq more than a year ago was that it is vitally important that foam suppressant should be fitted around the wing tanks of the planes so that, were they hit by small arms fire, there would be no repeat of that tragedy. What progress has been made in the fitting of foam suppressant to the remaining Hercules fleet, particularly the five that are currently deployed in Afghanistan?

Adam Ingram: As ever, when we have to learn lessons, we do. That is the principal purpose of boards of inquiry, although sometimes another examination of events may give us additional information. We have taken on board all the recommendations by the board of inquiry that deals with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. The programme to fit explosive-suppressant foam to the aircraft continues as planned, and two aircraft have been fitted so far. We will continue to work through that programme. It takes time because aircraft have to come out of service for fitting to take place, but we are on target to achieve the objectives that he mentions.

Gerald Howarth: Conservative Members join the Minister in sending our condolences to the families of those who have recently given their lives for our country, showing yet again the bravery of British troops on operations around the world.
	The Minister will recall that I wrote to him in March, warning that the lack of
	"sufficient, reliable and properly equipped aircraft ... was adding to the stress on soldiers and their families and causing tension between the RAF and the other services".
	That point was graphically reinforced six months later by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster). Does the Minister accept that responsibility for the fiasco lies not with the Royal Air Force but with Ministers, who have cut RAF numbers by 7,500 and require them to operate clapped-out old kit? In his reply in April, the Minister said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. He is asking a question, which he must not turn into a speech. It is simply not on to quote from a letter.

Lindsay Hoyle: He is still learning.

Gerald Howarth: The Minister gave me an assurance that investment would be made. When can our troops cease to feel let down by the Government and have the kit that they need to do the job that is being asked of them?

Adam Ingram: I heard one of my hon. Friends say as an aside that the hon. Gentleman is still learning. I thought that he would have learned the valuable lesson that it takes time to procure new equipment.I mentioned the A400M—I know that the hon. Gentleman supports the programme—but it takes time for that aircraft to be procured and put into theatre. The strategic tanker aircraft is also undergoing its final procurement analysis. The complex programme will ensure that we have a long-term solution for many decades to deal with some of the problems. Is he genuinely suggesting that, given that we do not have those aircraft, we should not use our existing aircraft? I think not. If he believes that they are not suitable and fit for purpose, he is wrong. The aircraft that go into the theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan must have appropriate defensive aids suites. So as to ensure that we get the best support, we have to lift them out in troopers and put them on through a mixture of RAF aircraft or hired civilian aircraft. We are now doing that. We understand the associated problems. We regret every incident when we have failed. However, such failures are not through want of effort or, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, because of clapped-out old kit.

Afghanistan

Russell Brown: What progress is being made with engagement with the local population and elders in Helmand.

Des Browne: The Afghan provincial government under the leadership of Governor Daud has made progress in engaging with local community leaders in Helmand. He sought and gained backing for his negotiations from President Karzai and, as part of the process, UK forces handed over security in Musa Qaleh to provincially raised forces. Such engagement has strengthened the governor's position and he continues to develop relations throughout Helmand.

Russell Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. There is no doubt that UK forces are second to none in carrying out their duties wherever they are required. Is there any aspect of that engagement with the local populace that he would wish to be improved and strengthened?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about our troops. I am sure that all hon. Members share his view. He asks whether I would like any aspects of the engagement with the communities in Helmand province to be improved. I would like the processes to be built upon. The key to that is to let Governor Daud, whom I met last week when I was in Helmand province, continue with the process that he has already started in Musa Qaleh—where he has proper political control—in other parts of northern Helmand, including the Sangin valley and other communities. The process is difficult, but ultimately, Afghan solutions to Afghan problems will deliver the answers for the Afghan people. We should support their properly constituted and elected government in achieving those solutions.

Andrew Robathan: Notwithstanding the excellent work of our troops in tough conditions in Afghanistan, has the Secretary of State seen the reports in  The Times today that say that, where our troops are pulled back, the Taliban have moved straight back in? Would he like to comment on that?

Des Browne: I read those comments, which are attributed to a man called Khan, whom I do not recognise as a spokesman for the community of Musa Qaleh. All morning, I have heard PGHQ in Helmand province inquiring as to who the spokesperson actually is. I am mindful of the fact that I have repeatedly had comments quoted to me from alleged spokespeople from Helmand who turn out to be members of the Taliban. Only last week, I spoke to the commanding officer of the British forces and the head of the Helmand taskforce who told me that they were keeping the situation in Musa Qaleh under daily observation. In his view, the deal done with the local community—between the governor and the local community—was being sustained. Of course it is a very delicate situation and we can only observe. There are associated risks, but unless we take them, the people of that part of Afghanistan will not secure the improvement that we are deployed there to achieve.

Chris Mullin: Can my right hon. Friend shed any light on reports that up to 60 Afghan civilians were killed in a NATO bombing at the end of last week? Can he say what help, if any, NATO is making available to survivors? Does he agree that, if we make mistakes like that, there is not the slightest chance of our winning hearts and minds in Helmand or anywhere else?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will have followed the story as it developed last week. Only over the weekend we had reports—public, open reports in the media, which I read—that General Jim Jones, who is known as SACEUR, theSupreme Allied Commander in Europe, apologised to President Karzai for the inadvertent casualties created. As he explained it, the Taliban had been using these individuals as a human shield. He clearly put the responsibility on the Taliban and I have heard from our own troops of circumstances in which the Taliban have used innocent individuals as a human shield—indeed, specifically lining up women and children in front of paratroopers on one occasion, not long after we were deployed in Helmand province. They do that because of the effect that my hon. Friend identifies: if there is accidental injury or death caused to innocent civilians, the Taliban will play that out. We are mindful of that fact, which is why we take the greatest care to ensure that there are no civilian casualties.

Wayne David: With 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of Britain coming from the poppy fields of Afghanistan, does my right hon. Friend agree that in the interests of our young people, our armed forces should be fully supported in Afghanistan?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend identifies one of the reasons why it is important that the world, not just the UK or the developed world, which is specifically represented in Afghanistan, sees through the support and development of the Afghan economy so that the people of Afghanistan will not be exploited, as they have been by drug dealers and others in the past and forced to grow poppies for opium. It is a long-term problem and those who understand how it has been dealt with in other countries will realise that we have to build governance, build the rule of law and security and build economic prosperity. Only in that context will very poor people be dissuaded from growing poppy when they are in many cases being forced into it by violence.

Crispin Blunt: Rather than trying to find Mr. Khan's identity, would we not do better to recognise the evidence of our own officers and soldiers, particularly those who have been in discussions with village elders about arrangements in the villages. They have identified among those village elders potential supporters of the Taliban who they believe have been giving them the once over during the course of the negotiation. Should we not recognise the truth of the situation—that the Taliban are very much stronger six months after we started our deployment in Helmand than they were before?

Des Browne: I do not accept that the Taliban are much stronger now than they were before. I believe that they were significantly present in those communities. We also saw, as I mentioned in response to the previous question, a significant increase in the growing of poppy in the year before we deployed into Helmand province. That, among other indications such as the beheading of teachers and closure of schools because they were teaching girls, suggests exactly what they were doing. There was much evidence that the Taliban were in those communities. The fact that we deployed into those communities brought them out very quickly, as it did in northern Helmand.
	The essence of the hon. Gentleman's question is that I should pay regard to what the commanders on the ground tell me, and that is exactly what I do. It will be instructive for him to know that we have accepted, and indeed Governor Daud has entered into, only one agreement, although there are discussions going on across northern Helmand. He is bravely holding out to ensure that, as in Musa Qaleh, he deals with people who properly represent the community, and not the Taliban.

Nick Harvey: I welcome the agreements with village elders that have been struck in various parts of Helmand province, but will the Secretary of State give us an assessment of how well he thinks they are working on the ground? To what extent has the combination of Ramadan and the poppy-planting season contributed to a lull in activity? What impact has the air strike last week had on relations with the Afghan population? What can he tell us about the longer-term future of the security elements that the village elders have been able to summon to the cause? What prospects are there for integrating them eventually in the Afghan auxiliary police?

Des Browne: The first point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that there are no agreements—there is one agreement. That is the point that I was making in response to the previous question. There is one agreement thus far. There are negotiations going on in Sangin, in the Kajaki area and in other parts of northern Helmand. Those are being conducted in a canny and expert way by Governor Daud, who is ensuring that he deals with the appropriate people in those communities. It was only when he identified that he was dealing with the appropriate people in Musa Qaleh and those who represented the community, and not the Taliban, that he struck the deal.
	The second point I make to the hon. Gentleman is that the incident involving the inadvertent loss of life—it was not as much as people are reporting—did not happen in Helmand province. It happened in Kandahar in the Peshwar valley. That can have an effect on Helmand, but it will not have a direct effect. The blunt answer to his question is that the view of those on the ground who know is that the Musa Qaleh agreement is holding and that, if it holds and spreads in Helmand, that will be to the good of the people of Helmand, whatever other activities they may have been involved in. If we establish the strength of the local communities and they can hold out the Taliban, that is exactly what we went there to do.

Liam Fox: Are there not two threats to our relationship with the Afghan people? Governor Daud said last week of British help:
	"Promises to get projects up and running have not been kept and there hasn't been a DFID representative in Helmand for2 months."
	Secondly, politicians abroad have been calling for more action to destroy poppy crops. Do not the failure of DFID and the intention to destroy poppy crops in the short term—the only income for subsistence farmers— risk pushing the local population into the arms of the Taliban and undermining the efforts of our armed forces?

Des Browne: In the first place, Governor Daud is a man who represents his community and consistently asks for more, as indeed almost every hon. Member probably does in relation to their own constituents at one stage or another. It is not surprising therefore that he should focus on what more he wants for his community and not necessarily on what has already been achieved, and a significant amount has been achieved in Helmand province in road building, in other significant reconstruction work, in health and in schools. Indeed, we plan to do much more work, particularly in Musa Qaleh and in other parts of the north, in order to reinforce the deal that has already been struck in that part of the country.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman was wrong about the absence of a DFID representative in Helmand. Last week, I was in Lashkar Gar, where I met and spoke to a DFID representative present on the ground. The challenge is whether the security in the part of the province where we want to do the reconstruction work first is sufficient for us to deploy into those areas people who are not soldiers or troops, for the purposes of reconstruction work. That is a difficult judgment to make. Consequently, we need to reconfigure the way in which we do the construction or reconstruction work, and that is exactly what we have been doing across government. That is why in July I announced the deployment of 300 engineers into Helmand province, and we are beginning to see the work that they can do across the province. That work will build further security. We will then, on that basis, encourage non-governmental organisations and others to build their representation in Helmand, or to come back into the province to do what we went out there to do in the first place. We have, in my view, a programme now in place, principally as a consequence of the work that the Paratroopers did while they were there in regularly overmatching the Taliban.

Eurofighter Typhoon

Michael Jack: How many Eurofighter Typhoons his Department plans to purchase for the Royal Air Force.

Adam Ingram: The United Kingdom has to date contracted for 144 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft for the Royal Air Force. A decision on the third production buy of the aircraft, known as tranche 3, has still to be taken and is not required until at least 2007.

Michael Jack: I thank the Minister for the update on those numbers. I remind him that the Government have remained consistent to a commitment to buy 232 Eurofighter Typhoons. Given that 72 of those aircraft have already been sold, on a Government-to-Government basis, to Saudi Arabia, may I conclude that the number that the RAF will eventually be given is 160?

Adam Ingram: The Saudi Arabian export order is completely separate from the UK's commitments under the international memorandum of understanding signed by the Typhoon partner nations. The answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman's original question still stands.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is aware of how important the orders are to the north-west and its skills base. Can he ensure that we will look for the third tranche? I know that it is earlier than he expects, but some argue that joint strike fighter technology transfer may not go ahead, so will he be aware that we may have to use Typhoons off the carriers?

Adam Ingram: I know that there are those who argue for the marinisation of the Typhoon, but there are no plans to do so. Sometimes that is promoted by those in industry, and their spokespersons elsewhere, as plan B. I wish to make it clear, with regard to our intentions for the carriers, that plan A remains plan A. Those who campaign for plan B usually want it to be plan A, if the House understands me—[Hon. Members: "We don't."] Well, hon. Members should read  Hansard. This is an important issue. We have a major investment commitment across the whole defence sector. The defence industrial strategy sharpens that and gives us a better approach to look forward, with industry, to ensuring that all our procurement requirements can be met within the resources that are allocated to us. That applies to Typhoon as it does to every other procurement buy. We have an ambitious programme and we hope to meet all those ambitions.

Julian Lewis: May I say, in the nicest possible way, that the Minister did his reputation for straight speaking less than his usual justice in the answer that he just gave to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)? Let me give the Minister a second chance. Will he guarantee that however many of the Typhoons eventually come to the United Kingdom, none of them will be used fromthe two aircraft carriers that one assumes he and the Government will eventually get round to ordering?

Adam Ingram: I have given two very straight answers, and I do not think that I have anything to add to them. I talked about the Saudi Arabian export order, which has still to be concluded, and the way in which thatis separate from our own memorandum of understanding. I have indicated our plans in regard to the two aircraft carriers and what will fly off those two platforms. The hon. Gentleman fully understood the point that I made about plans A and B, and I assume that he supports that.

Regiments (Yorkshire)

Linda Riordan: If he will take steps to ensure that the merger of Army regiments will preserve historic links with Yorkshire towns and cities.

Adam Ingram: Connections with Yorkshire will be maintained through the presence of a permanent regimental headquarters in York, with outstations in Richmond and Halifax. In order to carry forward the historic links of the antecedent regiments with the towns and cities of Yorkshire, the Yorkshire regiment undertook a series of marches through the county over the summer.

Linda Riordan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Although I congratulate the Government on retaining the name of the Halifax regiment, may I press my right hon. Friend to confirm that the links will continue by giving a funding boost to the Army's Bankfield museum in Halifax? That will ensure that the historic links with the town are maintained.

Adam Ingram: I am not aware that there is an issue with the museum. My understanding was that museums would continue, but I shall certainly look into the specific point that my hon. Friend raised. On behalf of the new Yorkshire regiment, I ask her to work in the county and in her constituency to ensure that the regiment is fully recognised and supported by all the community.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that old regiments, such as the Green Howards and many others, had recognised historical links with cities such as York and towns such as Thirsk and Bedale, which helped with recruitment? He must ensure that those links are recognised under the new set-up; otherwise this Government and the next Government will have enormous problems with recruitment and retention.

Adam Ingram: I agree that trying to maintain recruitment is an issue across the whole Army, although, as it happens, recruitment in Yorkshire is strong and we do not believe that it has been affected by the formation of the new regiment. As of today, recruitment figures are actually better than they were for the previous two years, which tends to go against some of the views that have been expressed, but we have to maintain that activity to ensure that we retain that high level of recruitment. That is why recruiting activities will continue throughout Yorkshire; and I know that the hon. Lady will be supportive and will make sure that people interested in an Army career choose the Yorkshire regiment, as other Members will want to do for regiments in their constituencies. We are conscious of the issue, although we have not seen the adverse effect that the hon. Lady seemed to imply, and we shall continue all our efforts to maintain recruitment.

Derek Conway: Is the Minister aware that the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, which was merged just over four years ago into the Light Infantry, is to be merged in February into the Rifles? Will he assure the House that his Department will do everything it can to maintain the historic links with significant historical regiments, such as those for Yorkshire, which are so important for recruitment, and to encourage the regimental associations, when the mergers take place in February, to keep alive that distinguished history?

Adam Ingram: We are very conscious of the golden thread, as it is called. It is for the Army itself, as well as the regimental associations, to keep that light burning. Throughout its history, the British Army has undergone many, many changes, with regiments amalgamated and some disbanded, yet it is still revered as among the best, if not the best, in the world today. If we do not adapt to change and continue to make sure that our people have the best structure and the best support, that golden thread will be challenged, but we have it very much in mind.

David Hamilton: Although many predicted a doomsday scenario when amalgamations took place, is not it the case that because of the historic links, especially with Scottish regiments, recruitment is up?

Adam Ingram: Recruitment is doing well, although there are good and less good areas, but a lot of effort goes into maintaining it. There was cataclysmic phraseology around, to the effect that the process would be the end of the British Army as we know it, but that has simply not been the case. I am conscious, too, of the fact that 100,000 people marched through Glasgow in 1957 campaigning against the amalgamation of the Highland Light Infantry, yet the then Conservative Government proceeded with the amalgamation and the British Army is still strong. That amalgamation and subsequent ones proved successful. We have to make sure that this is as successful and I have every confidence that it will be.

Cluster Munitions

Tim Farron: What assessment he has made of the effect of the proliferation of cluster munitions and their use by non-state actors.

Adam Ingram: We constantly assess threats to our deployed forces, including the security environment in which they operate. To date, that has not required specific assessments of the effects of the proliferation of cluster munitions and their use by non-state actors.

Tim Farron: I thank the Minister for his reply. As the conflict in Lebanon shows, cluster munitions have a widespread and damaging impact on innocent civilians, both during and after conflict, so why are the Government refusing to support an international ban on the use of those manifestly indiscriminate weapons?

Adam Ingram: There was, of course, evidence that Hezbollah used such weapons. Clearly, the Israelis did as well, and we have raised that with the Israeli Government. Why are we opposed to a ban? This subject has been looked at across the range of nations that have an interest in it. If properly used, such weapons are consistent with international humanitarian law. The matter is constantly reviewed. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should take a capability out of the hands of our forces which could result in a situation in which, if they were deployed, British soldiers' lives could be lost. If that is what he is advocating and we ban such weapons, what is the next thing that he will want us to ban? Will he want our soldiers to have no weapons at all?

Denis MacShane: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report by Human Rights Watch that condemned the use of cluster bombs against Jews in Israel as a war crime? Has he further seen the Amnesty International report that said that the indiscriminate use of rockets and their bombs on, again, Jews in northern Israel was also a war crime? Does he share the assessment of those two organisations that the actions of Hezbollah, with regard to cluster bombs and the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Jews in Israel, constitute a war crime?

Adam Ingram: It is not for me to judge what is, and what is not, a war crime; that is best left to those who have judicial responsibility for such matters. I know that my right hon. Friend is only too well aware of the role of non-state actors and how ruthless they are—of what global terrorism does. There are no controls on such actors. They do not need to observe any law—international or any other—and they have total disregard for the lives of civilians. That is not the case in respect of the United Kingdom. We go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that, when we deploy forces and they are in conflict situations, every effort is made to minimise civilian casualties, if that is possible. That is not the case with regard to non-state actors, and I think that we shall see more brutal use of weapons of very evil choice by global terrorists in the years ahead. They are the ones whom we should be targeting it is they whom we are trying to deal with in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else they might manifest themselves.

Armed Forces (Resourcing)

Bernard Jenkin: What assessment he has made of the extent to which the armed forces have sufficient resources to meet their commitments; and if he will make a statement.

Des Browne: As Members are aware, we have two major commitments—those in Iraq and Afghanistan—plus significant enduring commitments in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and elsewhere. We accept those challenges because we cannot afford not to. The job that our forces are doing, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, is vital, and I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman's party for both of those missions. We continually review our force levels in each theatre, and I assure the House that the current levels are manageable, and that they give our commanders what they need to do the job.

Bernard Jenkin: Although we have supported the Secretary of State in those two missions, ever since the publication of the strategic defence review before the millennium, when Lord Guthrie went to see the Prime Minister to complain about underfunding of the armed forces, we have consistently pointed out and complained about overstretch and underfunding, and this Government's failure to match the commitments that they have taken on with the necessary resources to meet those commitments. If the Prime Minister is continually to say, "Whatever the commanders on the ground want, we will give them", whose fault is it if he cannot deliver what they want, such as more helicopters and armoured vehicles?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman can point to no example where the Prime Minister or any Secretary of State for Defence, or the Ministry of Defence, in this Government has failed to deliver what our troops on the ground want and need. Of course, we are able to do that because, in cash terms, the annual budget for defence has increased by £5 billion in the past five years. We should compare and contrast that with the cuts of £2.5 billion in the last five years of the previous Government. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make assertions about investment in our armed forces, he ought to do so on a proper, comparative basis.

Don Touhig: Resources, of course, can mean people as well as equipment, and if we are to maintain our defence capability, recruitment remains a challenge. I, and doubtless Members in all parts of the House, want more young people to learn about service in the forces, so that they might choose it as their career. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give the House a progress report on the pilot scheme to extend the combined cadet forces into state schools, and does he have any proposals to encourage more young people in state schools to join the cadets?

Des Browne: The pilot schemes are due to roll out shortly. Because they are still in the planning and negotiating stages with the individual schools concerned, I am not in a position to give him from the Dispatch Box the report that he would like, but I will write to him with the details of those discussions. However, we intend to ensure that the pilots are successful, so that they can be a forerunner of the development of cadet forces across the country.

Angus Robertson: On resources and the recent tragic loss of an RAF Nimrod in Afghanistan, the Secretary of State wrote to me today in detail, saying that the investigation
	"will include consideration of the concerns raised about the age and management of the Nimrod fleet",
	which I welcome. Can he tell the House today how quickly he expects the board of inquiry to conclude its investigations?

Des Browne: As I said in my letter to the hon. Gentleman, the board of inquiry, which was set up to deal with such matters, is not in my control and nor is it accountable to me. It is entirely independent and its conduct is entirely a matter for itself, but it is inconceivable that it would not deal with the very issues that he raised with me in correspondence. For the very reason that it is independent, I am not in a position to say when I expect it to report, but I anticipate that it will do so as quickly as possible, in line with the thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Chris Bryant: Experience of the armed forces parliamentary scheme suggests that the British armed forces will do their level best to meet every commitment that we throw at them. Although I disagree with the view that our armed forces are at overstretch, it seems clear that they are at stretch and have been for some considerable time. Would it not ease matters if we drew down our remaining troops in Bosnia, now that the majority of that task is complete, and if some of our European allies took a more forthright role—in particular, if German troops took on a combat role?

Des Browne: On Bosnia, we are looking at that very possibility in the context of EUFOR—the European force that is there—and its command and control. I am confident that, in or about next spring, we will be able to do just what he is urging upon me.

Peter Tapsell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted General Lord Guthrie's description of the British Government's military intervention in Afghanistan as "cuckoo", which he gave for exactly the reasons that I have repeatedly put to the right hon. Gentleman and his two predecessors as Secretary of State for Defence?

Des Browne: I indeed noted the interview that Lord Guthrie gave, but it must have been only partly reported in the newspaper that claimed to have that interview. Although I could see the assertion that the deployment of our troops into Afghanistan and the operation there were "cuckoo", I was unable to glean from the interview as reported exactly what the reasoning behind that assertion was, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the assertion was made for the reasons that he has articulated, because that allows me to repeat that those reasons are wrong. The hon. Gentleman repeatedly misunderstands, as do others in the House, what we are doing in Afghanistan. We are not doing what the Soviets or anybody else sought to do, or even the British Army before them. We are there in partnership with the Government of Afghanistan, and in excess of 30,000 Afghan troops are now fighting with us in Afghanistan.

Liam Fox: As the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) correctly said, the ultimate resource for our armed forces is manpower, which is dependent on morale and motivation. The Secretary of State told us that he did not know about the planned changes to the separation allowance, which will mean cuts to the income of many of our front-line combat troops, when he announced the recent bonus payment. Can he now confirm that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have decided that those cuts will go ahead? That is a clear case yet again of this Government giving with one hand and taking with the other, and—what is worse—undermining the morale and motivation of our troops, to boot.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman repeatedly draws conclusions from facts that he does not understand, into which he does not inquire, or which he misrepresents. On this occasion, he is making suggestions about the reconfiguration of the separation allowance—an issue that was reported in the media. I confess that I did not know the detail of the subject, but given that the decision was made three years ago, and was agreed by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, it is not surprising that it was not at the forefront of my mind. If he had made even the most cursory inquiry into the matter, he would have discovered that the reconfiguration of the allowances does not take one penny away from anybody or from the armed forces. It makes sure that the allowances are paid fairly across all the services. Money is not being taken away from anybody. Indeed, the operational allowance that I announced in the House two weeks ago is significant additional money for our armed forces. The total effect of the operational and the separation allowance is to give significant additional money to the armed forces, and, interestingly, it will result in more money for the lowest paid, which his proposal of a tax cut would not have achieved.

Hospital Facilities

Siobhain McDonagh: What progress has been made in providing military managed hospital wards.

Des Browne: By the end of this year, there will be a military managed ward at Selly Oak hospital. It will provide an enhanced military care environment for patients returning from an operational theatre, if it is clinically appropriate for them to be brought together in one ward. There has also been an increase in military nurse numbers at Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham, which is the primary reception hospital for operation casualties.

Siobhain McDonagh: What thought has gone into the provision of the best possible trauma care for our servicemen and women?

Des Browne: Decades of thought have gone into providing the best possible trauma care for our injured servicemen and women. Indeed, the previous Government started the process when they sought to close our military hospitals. As the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said when he visited Selly Oak on 25 October 2006:
	"you cannot keep a military hospital open with that level of throughput"
	that those military hospitals have.

Liam Fox: indicated assent.

Des Browne: I see that the hon. Gentleman assents. He has been trying to explain that across the country for some time, and I welcome his support. The way to improve care for trauma victims is to ensure that they are treated in theatre, in the best possible hospitals. We do that by providing them with world-class hospitals there and by ensuring that they are treated in world-class hospitals when they return. We have chosen to centre our care for those people in Selly Oak hospital in the west midlands because it is a world-renowned centre of trauma care.

Nicholas Winterton: The House is aware that a decreasing number of hon. Members have had any meaningful experience of the armed services. I regret that, and I certainly commend the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Does the Secretary of State accept that those of us who have had some experience and have benefited from British military hospitals, which have been centres of excellence, are deeply concerned—nay, angry—at the way in which we have provided medical services for those wounded while fighting for this country, and for peace and freedom in various parts of the world? I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that I regret the closure of British military hospitals, because we need to treat our soldiers in special places, where they can be with their colleagues, as that is helpful to their recovery.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman's last point was his most important point, and that is indeed why we are moving towards a military managed ward. If necessary—if the numbers justify it—we will move beyond that to military managed wards, to provide an appropriate environment for those who are recovering. However, I will do some research to ascertain whether, when the process of closing the hospitals was embarked on, he was just as vociferous from the Back Benches. [Hon. Members: "He was."] I am sure that he was, but I suspect that his was, if not a lone voice, a very lonely voice. I say to him, with respect, that on many occasions he may be a lonely voice but a right voice, but on this occasion he is a lonely voice but a wrong voice. In terms of clinical governance and proper support for our troops, those military hospitals would not have provided the level of care that we want for those who are prepared to make the sacrifices that our troops are prepared to make.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my right hon. Friend for his commitment to the provision of a military managed ward within the excellent care of the NHS. Our hard-working NHS doctors and nurses do not just operate here in the UK, but risk their lives in theatre as reservists and members of the Territorial Army. Does he agree that to denigrate NHS care for military personnel, as several Opposition Members have done, is an insult—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not make a speech.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the level of care that is being received by our forces in theatre. Last week, when I was in Helmand province, at Camp Bastion, I visited the military hospital in theatre. It is excellent and is excellently staffed by people of the highest calibre. Opposition Members have to square the circle with the people of this country when their leader suggests that his policy can be summed up in the word, "NHS"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can at least manage to get to Question 10. We will have to step the pace up. I want to hear how the Grenadier Guards are getting on.

Iraq

Vincent Cable: What assessment he has made of the prevalence of mental illness among servicemen returning from combat duty in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: The Ministry of Defence sponsored research by King's college to gain further understanding of the extent of mental health problems by those who have served on Operation Telic. We welcome the study's confirmation in May 2006 that the overwhelming majority of our servicemen and women are returning from operations in Iraq in good health and that there has been no significant difference between the mental health of regulars who deployed to Iraq and those who did not.
	In response to the study's findings that higher percentages of reservists who served on Telic 1 displayed symptoms of common mental health problems and post-traumatic stress disorder than reservists who did not deploy, we announced our intention to create an enhanced post-operational mental health care programme for recently demobilised reservists. That will be launched before the end of the year.

Vincent Cable: I pay tribute to those who have sacrificed their lives and their health in this conflict, includingthe 2,000 ex-servicemen—60 a month—who have succumbed to mental health problems following the conflict in Iraq. What is the Department's long-term commitment to that group of causalities, bearing it in mind that the conditions are often long-term and manifest themselves some time after the event?

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is excellent care for those on operations and those coming back from operations. Excellent care is provided by Combat Stress and the Priory Group, as well. As I have just mentioned, for post-operational purposes, for reservists, we are looking at providing additional mental health care. We are also looking at the possibility of pilots, working with the NHS and some charities, for other veterans who may need further support. For instance, that may mean some sort of involvement from military mental health care professionals.

Sandra Osborne: May I commend to the Minister the work of Hollybush house in my constituency, which provides specialist mental health services, residentially and in the community, as part of the Combat Stress network? Its already limited resources are being stretched by increased referrals from veterans recently back from Iraq and it also has concerns about support for reservists who have been recently deployed. Can I expect the Minister to announce, as part of his strategy, increased funding for Combat Stress by the end of year?

Derek Twigg: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in this matter. She mentioned Hollybush house and Combat Stress in her constituency. We work closely with them. As I said, in terms of the overall strategy, it is important to consider support when on operations and when coming back from operations. It is also important to look again at how we can improve post-operational support. We are looking at a particular scheme to give that support to reservists. We will continue to look at ways in which we can improve and get more assistance to those who need it.

Mark Harper: The Minister referred to a statement made by his predecessor in May, which said that a Minister was going to come to the Dispatch Box a few months later to clarify the details of the announcement. Five months later, the Minister has simply repeated chunks of May's statement, so it appears that the Department has made little or no progress. When will our reservists, some of whom have significant mental heath issues, as was acknowledged in May's statement, finally get to hear about the treatment package to which they will be entitled? When will the Department pull its finger out and make that announcement?

Derek Twigg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my earlier answers. I make it clear again that it is important that we get this right and that we provide the best possible service. We intend to make an announcement on the issue before the end of the year.

Hospital Facilities

Andrew Pelling: What plans he has for hospital treatment of injured service personnel; and if he will make a statement.

Des Browne: While on operational deployment, service personnel receive excellent medical care in field hospitals and other deployed medical facilities. In Afghanistan, we are upgrading the hospital facility and we already have an upgraded facility in Iraq. In addition, the £690 million Birmingham new hospital project will see our military casualties being treated in the largest and most modern critical care unit in Europe, as well as offering our medical personnel excellent training and research facilities.

Andrew Pelling: With Defence Medical Services standing at only 50 per cent. of its target staffing level, what can the Secretary of State do to reassure us that he is trying to increase the number of staff?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman identifies a challenge that we face. In response, we have to offer those who wish to practise medicine in the armed forces the best possible environment in which to do so, with the promise that they will be able to train and build their skills in a way that will allow them to advance in the profession. The investment that I outlined in the hospital that is presently called Selly Oak will provide that environment.

Gisela Stuart: While I will not accept any criticism of the quality of medical treatment that our servicemen and women receive from the NHS when they return injured, may I suggest to the Secretary of State that sometimes when our soldiers are treated in mixed wards, some of their special needs, such as where to store their kit bags and how they access visitors, are not quite understood? Further talks might be beneficial so that the two services understand each other better.

Des Browne: I have been to Selly Oak hospital, which has been the focus of all this attention, twice in the past six weeks. I spoke at length to patients on both occasions, and the group of patients whom I met only a couple of weeks ago were unstinting in their praise of the care that they received in the hospital. I will bow to no one in defending that hospital, which is providing the highest level of care. Of course, we can always improve our ability to generate the environment in which to recover that will be the best for those for whom we care. We will continually examine the situation, including the points that my hon. Friend raises.

Grenadier Guards

Ben Wallace: What the tour interval over the last three years will have been for the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards when deployed to Afghanistan in 2007.

Adam Ingram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence last updated the House on units deploying to Afghanistan on 10 October 2006. Army units are generally given advance notice of a possible deployment to allow them to plan ahead. The next major routine roulement of regular UK forces is due to take place next spring. The 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards has been given prior warning that it may form part of that deployment. An announcement regarding the next roulement will be made in due course, once the details have been finalised. If the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards was to deploy to Afghanistan in spring, its average tour interval for the three-year period between April 2004 and April 2007 would be 10.75 months.

Ben Wallace: Of course, that is way out of the harmony guidelines. The 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards will have been deployed on operational tour for 19 out of 36 months by spring next year. Does the Minister not recognise the massive effect that that has on family life, promotion and retention? Such a pathetic tour interval will lead only to fewer soldiers, not more. In light of those statistics, will the Minister review the dreadful decision taken by the Ministry of Defence in July 2004 to cut four infantry battalions? Will he recognise that to give soldiers what they need, perhaps more soldiers are required?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. Yes, we fully recognise the impact that such short tour intervals have on all serving personnel and their families, and we do all we can to work against that. Looking across the average, we are not that far out in terms of our overall commitment, but there are certain units that come under great pressure.
	The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of nonsense about the restructuring of the Army under the future infantry structure. Let me tell him why. Under the arms plot which we have had for too long and which successive Governments refused to tackle, anything up to seven battalions were not available because of re-roleing or relocating. The restructuring that we are undertaking and the reinvestment of 3,000 posts through the future Army structure will allow the British Army and the British armed forces to live up to the high accolade that we give them—that they are the best in the world. That will take time to deliver, but at least we are now on track. Previous Governments failed to achieve that.

Hospital Facilities

Shona McIsaac: What assessment he has made of the standard of NHS care received by service personnel.

Derek Twigg: Military patients are getting the very best treatment available. The Birmingham NHS hospitals that are the primary reception hospitals for operational casualties are among the best in the country. They offer specialist centres for trauma, burns, plastic surgery and neuroscience, treating civilian and military patients alike. That is why many of our armed forces doctors, surgeons and nurses work there—to help develop the skills needed for front-line missions.

Shona McIsaac: Is it not the case that the treatment received by all our armed forces—soldiers, Navy, Air Force or anybody else associated with our armed forces—is second to none? I pay tribute to Headley Court for the rehabilitation work that it does. Will my hon. Friend confirm that war pensioners are entitled to priority treatment on the NHS for injuries that they have received, which demonstrates the Government's commitment to treating our personnel with the respect that they deserve?

Derek Twigg: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the excellent, close working relationship between the military and NHS medical staff. When I visited Selly Oak, I saw the excellent relationship that has developed there, allowing the best possible treatment to be provided. Injured soldiers to whom I spoke there were clear in their congratulations and appreciation for the care and treatment that they had been given. My hon. Friend is right that war pensioners who suffered injuries are entitled to priority treatment on the NHS. Periodically we remind the NHS of that, and I shall continue to do that in future.

Climate Change

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the independent report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister last July. This morning Sir Nicholas published his comprehensive and compelling report. I believe it is a landmark in the debate about climate change.
	The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly stressed that climate change is an economic, energy, security and political issue, not just an environmental issue. The Stern report shows why this is true. The conclusions of the report are clear. First, climate change is the greatest long-term threat faced by humanity. It could cause more human and financial suffering than the two world wars and the great depression put together. All countries will be affected, but the poorest countries will be hit hardest. Secondly, the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action. At a minimum, a failure to tackle climate change—the continuation of what Sir Nicholas Stern calls business as usual—will cost 5 per cent. of global GDP. Costs could, however, run up to 20 per cent.of GDP.
	Thirdly, the window of opportunity to reverse the rise in global emissions is narrowing. The science and the economics suggest that to avoid catastrophic climate change, or at least its likelihood, global carbon emissions must peak in the next 10 to 15 years.
	Fourthly, the Stern report shows how the stock of CO2 or its equivalent has risen in the 150 years since the industrial revolution to 430 parts per million, and it continues to rise at around 2 parts per million a year. Stabilisation at between 450 and 550 parts per million would mean at least a 25 per cent. cut in global emissions, and for richer countries with higher emissions, it would mean a cut of 60 per cent. or more.
	Finally, Sir Nicholas makes it clear that climate change is not an insoluble challenge. The technologies to reduce energy demand, increase energy efficiency and develop low-carbon electricity, heat and transport are within grasp. The costs are manageable at around1 per cent. of global GDP. The earlier we act across all countries and all sectors, the more we keep costs down.
	Stern argues for global co-operation and domestic action, so let me set out our response in both areas. First, on emissions trading, Stern argues that we must create a price signal for carbon, in particular through the development of emissions trading schemes around the world. Emissions trading can not only ensure cost-effective reductions in emissions, but drive tens of billions of dollars each year to put developing countries on a path to low-carbon economies. The European Union is a world leader in that area, and a European solution is key to our goals. Today, we are proposing that the EU commits to new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent. by 2020 and at least 60 per cent. by 2050.
	We are setting out our commitment to strengthen the EU emissions trading scheme as the nucleus of a global carbon market. I will be discussing with business and environmental groups on Wednesday how we can develop a unified UK position for phase 3 of the EU emissions trading scheme from 2012. I am sure that we need to secure the long-term certainty of the scheme, to extend it to cover new sectors, especially aviation, and to link it to other emerging emissions trading schemes, notably those in California and other parts of north America.
	Secondly, Stern argues for a stronger focus on technological co-operation, including the doubling of energy research and development support and a fivefold increase in low-carbon technologies. In March, the Chancellor announced the creation of an energy technologies institute, a new public-private partnership worth £1 billion of research and development funding into low-carbon energy technologies over the next10 years. Today, we can announce that two new companies will be joining the partnership, Scottish and Southern and Rolls-Royce, taking total contributions so far to £550 million, half of which has come from the Government and half of which has come from the private sector.
	Stern also identifies a specific need to develop low-carbon transport fuels, which is why the UK has initiated a joint taskforce with Brazil, South Africa and Mozambique to promote the development of a regional sustainable biofuels strategy in southern Africa. The renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership, which the UK launched in 2003, is now working in more than 40 countries to develop policies and financing frameworks for investment in sustainable energy.
	At the Gleneagles G8 summit last year, the UK was instrumental in establishing the energy investment framework to bring forward increased investment in energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. That was led by the World Bank and other regional development banks. The UK Government, with president Wolfowitz of the World Bank and the four leading regional development banks, are therefore pleased to announce today a partnership with the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development to stimulate private sector investment through that framework. President Wolfowitz and the Chancellor will co-host a conference early in February 2007 to kick off the partnership.
	Thirdly, hon. Members on both sides of the House know that action to reduce deforestation, which makes up 18 per cent. of global greenhouse gas emissions each year and which is more than the whole of the transport sector, is important. Forests are of great global importance for climate change and biodiversity, but they are also the sovereign territory of the countries where they are, and only those nations can decide what happens to them. With the Governments of Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, with Germany holding the presidency of the G8 and the EU next year, and with the World Bank and other interested parties, we will be exploring over the coming months how to mobilise global resources for sustainable forestry.
	Fourthly, on adaptation, the review suggests that richer countries must provide financial support to developing countries to adapt to the changes in climate that are already in train. The UK Government are strongly committed to making climate risk reduction key to development activities. Contributions to the special climate change fund, the least developed countries fund and the Canadian international development research centre are additional to development finance and policy as part of this drive.
	In all those four areas, the UK is determined to continue to show international leadership. That drive is strengthened by our domestic leadership. To be the most convincing persuaders abroad, we must be effective contributors at home. Between 1997 and 2005, when the economy grew by 25 per cent., the Government led the way to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions were cut by 7 per cent. We are exceeding our Kyoto targets and are the only country on track to double them. The ambitious commitments in the energy review to take a further 19 to 25 million tonnes of carbon out of the economy will add further impetus to reduce emissions.
	We have now also decided to put in place a legislative timetable to become a leading low-carbon economy. Our climate change legislation will provide a clear, credible, long-term framework for the UK to achieve its long-term goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Bill will be based on four pillars. For each, we will give details at the time of the Bill's publication. In addition, we are determined to promote the widest possible debate in the House and across the country about the contents of the Bill.
	First, the Bill will put into statute the Government's long-term goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050 from 1990 levels. We will also consider appropriate interim targets. We are determined to enhance Britain's competitive position and believe that business in particular will benefit from the long- term framework that is so important for effective investment decisions.
	Secondly, the new legislation will establish an independent body—a carbon committee—that will work with Government to reduce emissions over time and across the economy. We will ensure that the committee's advice is transparent, equitable and mindful of sectoral and competitiveness impacts, including the need to secure energy supplies at competitive prices.
	Thirdly, we believe that targets need to be accompanied by substantive measures if they are to have credibility. Therefore, the legislation will create enabling powers to put in place new emissions reduction measures to achieve our goals.
	The final pillar of the legislation will be to assess what additional reporting and monitoring arrangements are necessary to support our aims of a transparent framework for emissions reduction, including reports to the House.
	The House and the country owe a huge debt to Sir Nicholas Stern and his staff for their outstanding work. His report should be a cause for alarm but also for action. The whole Government are determined to deliver that action, at home and abroad.

Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance notice of it.
	The Opposition strongly welcome the findings of the Stern report. I cannot pretend to have read all700 pages, and I only hope that it has been printedon recycled paper. As the key findings were comprehensively leaked over the weekend, however, it has been possible to get the gist. Sir Nicholas Stern and his team deserve to be congratulated on their forensic and thorough analysis of both the dangers and the opportunities presented by climate change. The report is an important and profoundly serious piece of work.
	In its overall message, Stern's analysis reveals little that was not already known, but it puts beyond doubt the arguments that the Opposition have been advancing for some time, and that the Environmental Audit Committee has been advancing for even longer: first, that the activities of mankind and climate change are inextricably related; secondly, that we do not have much time, although we do have just enough time to take action to head off irreversible and catastrophic changes to the earth's climate; thirdly, that we must decouple economic growth from carbon emissions and move quickly towards a low-carbon global economy; and, fourthly, that the costs of not tackling climate change will be infinitely greater than the costs of taking action now.
	The Chancellor has rightly emphasised the need to put in place an effective, international, market-based system for reducing global emissions. I note that he proposes a new commission to take that forward, for which we have already called. It is good to see him accepting our advice. We have also called for a tougher and wider application of the EU emissions trading scheme as one means of creating a price signal for carbon. Again, it is pleasing to note that the Chancellor has caught up.
	The Secretary of State has finally stopped playing hard to get over our calls for a climate change Bill, and announced that we will have one. I hope that he will confirm that that will form part of the next Queen's Speech, which he omitted to mention in his statement. We look forward to debating the details of the Bill.
	It is good that the Government have accepted the need for a new independent body, which will work with the Government to reduce emissions, but does the Secretary of State expect the carbon committee to set targets based on scientific evidence, as we do, or will the targets be set by Government on the basis of a wing and prayer? I remind the Secretary of State that his party has a very poor record on meeting its own environmental targets.
	I note that the 60 per cent. reduction target is to be put into statute. What about the "interim targets" that the Secretary of State is "considering"? Unless they are statutory as well, they will be in danger of being about as meaningless as all the other targets that have been missed. I see no reference at all to the annual rolling carbon reduction targets for which we, and climate change campaigners, have been asking. Have the Government rejected that proposal?
	The Secretary of State says that the final pillar of the legislation will be
	"to assess what additional reporting and monitoring arrangements are necessary".
	An assessment does not sound much like a pillar. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to an annual carbon budget report in Parliament? That would give him and his successors an opportunity to report on progress, and to set out any new measures that are thought necessary to ensure that carbon dioxide emissions are reduced before putting them to the vote.
	What has the Secretary of State in mind when he talks of "enabling measures"? Will he assure the House that when he introduces any new measures he will do so in an upfront, transparent and open manner, and that the measures will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval?
	There is a real danger that the Government are intending to produce a watered-down climate change Bill, which will do little to impose the externally applied rigour that is needed to change the mindset of Ministers and civil servants. We do not want a watered-down climate change Bill, or a Bill based on four wobbly pillars. We want a Bill that will create a green revolution throughout government.
	The Secretary of State can hardly have failed to notice that his own thoughts on measures to tackle climate change were leaked at the weekend. They included a range of new taxes. It was an interesting wish list, and if the Chancellor accepts any of the Secretary of State's proposals we will of course examine them with care. We have been calling for a rebalancing of taxation to reward activities that do not contribute to climate change, and to bear down on those that do. The fact is that, since 1997, the proportion of tax revenues generated by environmental taxes has fallen from 7.7 per cent. to6.2 per cent. That trend needs to be reversed, but will the Secretary of State assure us that the Chancellor will not see it as a chance simply to hike up the tax burden yet again? We need replacement taxes, not extra taxes. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Chancellor's record on introducing stealth taxes has seriously undermined public confidence, led to widespread and understandable cynicism, and made the job of persuading people of the need for green taxation very much harder?
	We welcome the Stern report, but we are doubtful about the Government's willingness or ability to follow through with effective action. Under Labour, carbon emissions have risen in five of the last eight years, and they are higher now than they were in 1997. According to Stern, the costs of dealing with climate change are increasing with every passing year. Has the Secretary of State calculated how much less expensive it would have been if the Government had acted sooner?
	Is not the main reason for the Government's failure to date that the Chancellor simply has not taken the issue seriously enough? Incidentally, where is the Chancellor? Given that Stern himself said this morning that the issue was far too important to be left to energy and environment Ministers, it is extraordinary that the Chancellor has done exactly that this afternoon.
	The speeches surrounding the publication of the Stern report suggest that, at last, the Government have started to become more ambitious about climate change. If that is true, and if it is followed up with effective action, I shall be delighted. However, we have heard too many grandiose speeches from the Government before to be wholly convinced.
	The Government have dithered for too long. We now need decisions and action: we need to get on with the job.

David Miliband: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to associate myself with his remarks about the Stern review and the excellent way in which it was done. Listening to him, you would have thought that the Conservatives had been the most enthusiastic supporters of the Government's green measures over the past 10 years. You would have thought that the Tories had been champing at the bit for the climate change levy that was introduced—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should address the Speaker.

David Miliband: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
	I wonder whether hon. Members noticed that the hon. Gentleman failed to apologise for the fact that the Conservatives opposed the measures that we took, including the climate change levy and the aggregates levy. He asked where the Chancellor's decisions had led over the past 10 years. They have led to the United Kingdom being the only country in the world that has more than doubled its Kyoto commitment.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the work on annual targets that we have announced. I am glad that he did so. On Friday, the Leader of the Opposition said that we should have
	"binding year on year targets".
	The hon. Gentleman was quickly sent out to explain what the Leader of the Opposition meant—namely, that those would not be "rigid annual targets" but a "rolling programme of targets". He also said—this is very helpful—
	"Well, it's over 3 years until the general election. It doesn't matter until then does it?"
	It does matter what the Opposition's policies are. They are either a serious party of government or they are a shower; at the moment they are a shower, no matter how many windmills they put on their roofs.

Christopher Huhne: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for the courtesy of letting us have an advance copy of his statement.
	I associate Liberal Democrat Members with the welcome for Sir Nick Stern's excellent report. Sir Nick is one of the few British economists with a genuinely global reputation by virtue of his role as chief economist at the World Bank for many years. The report will have a serious impact not only in the business and economics community in this country but more widely—particularly, I hope, in the United States. It is significant because it turns on its head the old notion that we could delay action on climate change because the costs and benefits were out of line. It is clear from Sir Nick's work that we must not delay in taking action.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's letter to the Chancellor—or was it the letter to  The Mail on Sunday?—in which he set out a range of green taxes that bore more than a passing resemblance to a package that the Liberal Democrats voted on at Brighton. One could almost say that it was a carbon copy of our policies. I, for one, believe that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I thank the Secretary of State for that.
	We welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a legislative framework and an independent review body—the carbon committee. However, it is important that he tells us whether it will be able to take its evidence openly, whether its minutes will be published, like those of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, and whether it will produce annual reports to this House assessing progress towards the targets on which all major parties in the House now agree, however belatedly in some cases. The problem is that the statement makes no mention of annual targets—indeed, in other places the Secretary of State has dismissed them—but merely mentions "appropriate interim targets". What would we think of the Treasury if it did not set annual targets for its expenditure? On the other hand, the Secretary of State might think that not a bad idea, given the damage that he is inflicting on his own budget at present.
	Is not this an entirely untenable position? Is not the Treasury, or any reputable economic forecasting organisation, fully capable of taking into account the effect of the weather on energy demand, carbon emissions and growth in gross domestic product? Is the Treasury really saying that all the work that the MPC, or any self-respecting economic group, can do on smoothed averages, cyclically adjusted figures and even weather-adjusted figures is completely irrelevant to the carbon framework? I urge the Secretary of State to look again at the possibility of setting more realistic targets that would allow this House to assess the trajectory in meeting those targets in 2030 or 2050. How on earth can anyone hold to account a Government who are up for election in 2009 or 2010 when the targets are being set for 2030 or 2050?
	The report contains nothing about joined-up government, which is a key element of dealing with climate change, following on from the Stern review. When will the Government set up a Cabinet committee, headed by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor, with the clout to get the team of Ministers working as a team? If climate change is the No. 1 problem, as we have heard so often, why are flood defence budgets being cut? Why has the Treasury simply bottled out of taking on the fuel duty protesters year after year so that carbon emissions from transport have increased sharply? Why is the Department of Trade and Industry cutting the centres for ecology and hydrology, which help us understand the impact of climate changeon biodiversity? Why does the Department for Communities and Local Government sanction more than 100,000 new homes on flood plains, contrary to the advice of the Environment Agency? Again, that point was raised in the Stern review.
	Why do not we get straight answers in plain English about those contradictions? On climate change policy, should not the Government play like a well-rehearsed orchestra? Instead, the players pay no attention to the conductor, and the orchestra is out of tune, off key and not playing to time. It is no wonder that climate change policy is a shambles. When will the Secretary of State start pulling the Government's efforts together in a co-ordinated manner?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) sounded like an old record when he pressed his musical metaphor.
	If climate change could be tackled by setting up a committee, successive Governments would have solved the problem long ago. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary again pointed out, many of us who are currently sitting on the Front Bench last week attended a Cabinet committee on energy and the environment, chaired by the Prime Minister, on our international climate change strategy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the be all and end all, although I am grateful for his support for that Government initiative.
	Let me tackle the hon. Gentleman's serious point about annual targets. I know of no economic model that makes allowances for the weather. I have not seen Treasury expenditure plans that make such allowances. That is why annual targets do not make sense and why the Kyoto protocol specifically rejected them in favour of its five-year targets. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman says much about reductions at home—as does the Conservative party—but it is vital to realise that a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Bangalore is as dangerous as a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Birmingham. That is why buying our emissions reductions abroad is a perfectly ethical and important way forward, which is not captured in a debate about targets in the UK.
	However, monitoring annually—reporting on, to use the hon. Gentleman's words—our progress towards those targets is a completely different matter. The Government have been committed to that for at least nine months—possibly longer—and it was put into statute last year under the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) promoted. I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be plenty of chances to debate the matter, more often than annually, but that is not an argument for annual targets.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the carbon committee. I said that I would set out the details when the climate change Bill is introduced. As he intimated, there are difficult issues to get right, including the balance between an independent committee and its responsibilities and Government responsibilities. We will present proposals to ensure the transparency and clarity that he seeks.

Michael Meacher: I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In the light of the Stern report, does he accept that the Government have four key responsibilities: first, to ratchet up the contribution of renewables to electricity generation in this country from the current pathetic4 per cent. to at least 25 per cent. in 10 to 15 years; secondly, to require industry to report on its environmental impact year after year; thirdly, to provide for a carbon budget for individual households to assist them in reducing emissions year by year; and, fourthly, to require an overall aggregate reduction throughout the country of3 per cent. a year as the only way to achieve the target of a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050? Does he also accept that the Government should report—every year, I hope, but at least every five years—on success, and, if we have not been successful, on what needs to be done to get back on track?

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend has raised four points. On renewables, I am not sure that he will be satisfied, but we are committed to generating 20 per cent. of our electricity supply from renewables by 2020. I know that my right hon. Friend would like that figure to be 25 per cent. by 2025, but we propose to increase that contribution from 4 per cent. to 20 per cent. within 14 years. In respect of the Companies Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not venture into an already crowded terrain. On individual accounts, he emphasised the importance of offering clarity to people about the consequences of their household decisions. When energy prices are high, there is not only an environmental but an economic win as people improve their energy efficiency. I am certainly committed to that. Finally, as I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), measures to deal with reporting arrangements are now in statute as a result of the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. I look forward to successive debates on those issues.

Michael Jack: In welcoming Sir Nicholas's report and conclusions, may I tell the Secretary of State that it might have been more helpful if the documents to which he referred had been available in the Vote Office ahead of his statement? That would have been better than having them relayed to us by the BBC, which reported that its correspondents had read all 38 pages of the summary while Members were simply referred to a website.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee recommended more work on the development of green aviation fuel through bio-energy work. In his statement, he referred to the creation of a group in southern Africa to deal with that issue, but given that South Africa already produces half of its aviation fuel by a process that can produce green aviation fuel, will the group take that work on? Secondly, at the domestic level, what measures will the right hon. Gentleman take to encourage individuals to invest more in energy-saving methods? Many of them, like windmills and photovoltaics, currently have a poor rate of return, so what can he do to improve that?

David Miliband: I apologise to the House as I should have explained the problem about the documentation earlier. It was not an environmental matter, but there was an administrative problem with the printing of the 711-page report. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the 38-page summary and I am sure that the Stern team would want me to explain to the House that no offence was intended. I have checked and I know that it is trying to remedy the problem as soon as possible.

Christopher Huhne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a point of order during a statement.

David Miliband: In respect of what the right hon. Gentleman called green aviation, I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is in his place. Not only in southern Africa, but in Europe and north America, it is important to pursue energy efficiency and technological innovation in respect of aviation as well as surface transport. I know that that is on the right hon. Gentleman's agenda. As to energy saving, I referred earlier to the importance of information when I answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). The Government are investing significant sums of public money in all our constituencies on insulation and other energy-efficiency measures. They are important because they enable families, especially poorer families, to benefit from energy efficiency. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's support for those efforts.

Andrew Miller: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will convince the House that the ensuing Bill will contain some imaginative measures on personal transport—a difficult issue for the whole world to deal with. Can he assure me that some vision will be applied to that issue so that as we move forward on the route towards a possible hydrogen-based economy in the long run, people are carried with us and buy cars such as a British-made Vauxhall Astra, which is considerably cleaner than even a hybrid Lexus?

David Miliband: I admire my hon. Friend's support and tenacity on behalf of his constituents. I am not sure that the climate change Bill is the obvious place to pursue the matters to which he refers, but I know that those issues are being considered at both European and domestic level. I assure him that we recognise the need to tackle transport issues as part of the wider approach to the issue.

Patrick Cormack: To ensure that the climate change Bill is as effective as possible, will the Secretary of State have urgent discussions with the Leader of the House, so that the Bill has exhaustive pre-legislative scrutiny and careful post-legislative scrutiny and monitoring?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I have already spoken to the Leader of the House about the statement that I made earlier today and about the need for extensive discussion of the Bill in the House and outside. Quite what procedure we use is still to be determined, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want the Bill to be as widely debated and scrutinised as possible.

Elliot Morley: May I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend? Nick Stern's work will have international significance in taking forward the debate on climate change, and it underlines the lead that this country has given on the issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the logic behind Nick Stern's report is that we need a fundamental cultural shift towards a carbon-accounting economy? Some of those measures—fiscal measures and regulation—could be introduced quite quickly, but others may require more detailed analysis. We should not have any boundaries, but rather look at the whole concept of carbon accounting, including personal carbon accounting. We need some good-quality analysis and work to be done on that, so will he press his friends in the Treasury for that?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), is a distinguished former environment Minister. There is a fundamental challenge in the Stern report and it can be simply expressed. For 150 years, we have pumped carbon and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if it had no environmental or economic cost. We have known for some time that it has an environmental cost, but today, the economic cost has been dramatised. Simply put, we need to ensure that, as we move forward, that cost is incorporated into the economic and social decisions that we take. The accounting issues that my hon. Friend raises are important. A range of groups, including the Royal Society of Arts, are looking at personal carbon allowances. That can only be a good thing as we think about how Government, business and individuals play their part in this global challenge.

Sammy Wilson: Even before the report was published, spokesmen were claiming that it would require more green taxes. Will the Secretary of State comment on the claim that the report will be used as an excuse for increasing the tax burden on an already over-taxed public? Will he comment on claims that that will result in more expensive consumer goods, less access to foreign travel and a greater imposition for people living in rural areas?

David Miliband: I am sure of one thing: failure to act will lead to the sort of tax increases and costs to individuals that the hon. Gentleman fears. The Government's position in respect of green taxes was first set out in 1997, when we came to office, and it was developed in a 2002 Treasury paper that I commend to him. At every stage, we have pursued the principle of fairness at the heart of our taxation and spending policy and I assure him that that will continue.

Kali Mountford: While looking at personal accountability for individual carbon cost, can my right hon. Friend look at the two sides of the equation? As well as people being taxed for carbon-rich behaviour, can he encourage people to reduce carbon in the atmosphere by rewarding good behaviour and by giving grants, for example, to firms such as the one in my constituency that produces heat exchange systems, which are extremely effective in reducing carbon emissions and the heating costs of poorer families? That could be a win-win for everyone.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The greatest win for an individual is that they will have a lower energy bill as a result of the energy-efficiency measures that she describes. That prospect seems to offer incentives in exactly the right place. If we can support companies such as those in her constituency, all the better.

Nigel Evans: I know that people in my constituency will want to play their part in any common-sense measures that will come forward, but I hope that, in the Secretary of State's rush to tax 4x4s, he remembers that, while they may be a fashion accessory in Chelsea and Westminster, they are working farming vehicles in rural areas. Can he say something about what he will do to bring China, the United States, Russia and India on board? China has a new power plant opening every week and in India growth is such that 200,000 mobile phones are sold every day.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As the Chancellor and the Prime Minister made clear this morning, there must be international action as well as domestic action. I have tried to refer to that in my statement. China, India, the United States and Australia all need to be part of a global agreement, but I hope that, in his discussions with legislators in the countries he mentioned, the hon. Gentleman will pursue the fact that every one of those countries is a signatory to the 1992 UN convention on climate change. That convention committed those countries to seek to avoid dangerous climate change. It is important that we say to legislators in those countries that their Governments and Executives need to live up to those commitments.
	Premier Wen from China and Prime Minister Singh from India have been in this country over the past four or five weeks and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met them. I think that we have the opportunity, if the industrialised world sets itself hard targets—as we have done and as the European Union has done—to bring China and India on board, but we also need to ensure that important steps forward at state and city level in the United States, and by American businesses, are translated into action by the US Government.

Joan Ruddock: As someone who has worked on these issues for more than a decade, I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the commissioning of the report and their responses to it. If we embrace everything that Nicholas Stern has said, history will see that today was a turning point in the global treatment of climate change. In setting an example at home, will my right hon. Friend take a look at the grants for householders to install low-carbon equipment? I understand that the grants have been so popular that they have almost run out. I hope that he will address that issue very soon.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend has a long and distinguished record in this area. I am happy to inform her and the House that the Government have brought forward some spending that was previously planned for next year to help the low-carbon buildings fund, which I agree has proved to be a tremendous success.

Tim Yeo: There can be no more important subject debated by this House in this Parliament than the one addressed by Sir Nicholas Stern and I hope that hon. Members will have a chance to debate his report once they have had a chance to read it. I warmly welcome the message that early action to tackle climate change will be more effective and less painful than delayed action. In that context, does the Secretary of State agree that there could be no more timely moment for his intervention to recommend tax changes to increase the incentives for greener choices by businesses and consumers; that Britain's influence abroad would be enhanced if we were willing to take bold and perhaps unpopular action at home; and that an early litmus test of how seriously the Government continue to take the issue of climate change will be seen in the pre-Budget report?

David Miliband: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that domestic and international action must be linked. I am sure that he is also right that there are a range of opportunities to take the debate forward. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and I were smiling at each other across the Dispatch Box because we had a debate in the Chamber two weeks ago about climate change issues, but I am happy to debate it as often as possible.

John McFall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor on the report? I note that it was commissioned before the present Leader of the Opposition was elected to his post. I urge my right hon. Friend to inject some realism into the debate. There will be no pain-free choices, for individuals and their future lifestyle or for the Government and their policies. The issue is too important to leave to party politics, so will my right hon. Friend ensure a national debate between politicians and in every community and school so that we may leave a safe planet for our children and their children?

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I tried to refer in my statement to the need for the climate change Bill to be something that can be taken out to businesses, schools and communities around the country, because he is right about the need for action by Government and businesses, and also individual action. In respect of his first point, some people always find change painful, but when the failure to change would be even more painful, the case for action is proven. That is the case in this area and I will be seeking to prosecute it.

Susan Kramer: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that action on climate change is vital at the international and national level, and also at the local level. Will he join me in congratulating Richmond council on introducing a parking charge scheme based on emissions, despite vociferous opposition from all the local Tory councillors—

Christopher Huhne: And David Cameron.

Susan Kramer: Yes, indeed. Will the Secretary of State use the opportunity of the climate change Bill to give local councils greater flexibility to switch from council tax to green taxes at that level of government?

David Miliband: In an interview yesterday, I was asked about the Richmond council decision and I could almost feel the interviewer fall off his chair when I said that although it was a Lib Dem council and a Lib Dem idea, it seemed like a good one to me. I am happy to say that.

David Hamilton: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a geothermal heating project in Midlothian, which has been on the go for some time and would reintroduce an old industry that can contribute to the future of the country? The project is 3,000 ft down in old mine workings at Monktonhall, and if it works, with 1 million gallons of hot water produced every minute, it could be replicated 200 times in Scotland alone and thousands of times throughout the United Kingdom.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are certainly committed to ensuring not just that renewable energy sources that have been developed and are close to the market are increasingly available but that we pursue sources further away from the market, through the research and development to which he referred. There is often discussion of carbon capture and storage, in which I know that my hon. Friend is interested, given his background, but we are interested in all ways of pursuing low-carbon energy sources.

Colin Challen: I welcome the announcement that there will be a climate change Bill in the Queen's Speech. Indeed, by pure coincidence, after the statement I shall be presenting my fourth climate change Bill—the texts of all my Bills are freely available if my right hon. Friend wants to incorporate them in his Bill in a couple of weeks' time. May I draw his attention to the statement in Sir Nick Stern's executive summary in the second paragraph on page 23 and ask him to comment about equity? In a world where there has been such long delay in delivering the 0.7 per cent. United Nations aid targets and the millennium development goals will be so long delayed, according to the Chancellor, what hope do we have of reaching the 1 per cent. of gross domestic product expenditure that Sir Nick talks about, and that it will be equitably spent?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on the issue. In respect of sharing out global burdens, the 1992 UN convention to which I referred earlier includes the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: common responsibilities in which every country must play a part but differentiated because countries with better capacity, greater wealth and greater ability to contribute to tackling the climate change challenge must do so. That means that the industrialised countries must take on an equitable burden that reflects their development. I shall certainly look at the Bill that my hon. Friend introduces, but the principle of burden-sharing as enunciated by the UN is the right one.

John Maples: I think that we are all agreed on the seriousness of the problem, and the debate is shifting to some difficult questions about what one does about it. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that the problem is global, which means that nothing we do in this country—although it may make us feel good—will actually solve the problem if others do not act. That leads to many conclusions, but two of them are, first, that it is important to develop technologies that help solve the problem, as he said, and to make them available in the developing world on terms that it can afford; and, secondly, that whatever we do domestically it makes no sense to impose costs on British business that make it uncompetitive internationally if other countries do not do the same thing.

David Miliband: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman so I hope that, on reflection, he will see that his statement that nothing we do will make a blind bit of difference is too strong. There are two tangible ways in which our action can make a difference. The first is that unless we show willingness to act, as sure as night follows day, the Chinas, the Indias and the other developing countries certainly will not want to follow suit. That is the first reason why it is important for us to take action. Secondly, every business organisation to which I have talked has said, "We want long-term certainty and stability so that we know the rules of the game—the carbon price game. Once we know those rules, we will compete and win in those markets." That is a second reason why there is strong self-interest in this country, as well as social interest, in taking the sort of action that I think the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will not want to dismiss so lightly.

Rob Marris: Forty-five pages of Sir Nicholas Stern's report are devoted to adaptation, out of 711 pages. I note that my right hon. Friend referred to adaptation in his statement, whereas both the Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons completely overlooked it. My right hon. Friend referred to his Bill with four pillars. Can I suggest a fifth pillar for the Bill—if not a fifth column—to deal with adaptation, which is pressing? Climate change has already started, and we need to adapt to it now, in terms of flood defences and many other things.

David Miliband: The adaptation challenge that my hon. Friend refers to is important in this country, as well as abroad. I think that it is less a matter of legislation than it is one of expenditure.
	To answer him and my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen), who asked the previous question, there will be global flows into energy over the next 30 years. The International Energy Agency estimates that there will be $17 trillion of investment over the next 30 years. The question is: does that investment incorporate assumptions about the carbon price, or not? If it does incorporate those assumptions, it will support low-carbon sources of energy. If it does not, I am afraid that we shall be in very serious trouble indeed. It is not only public spending that is important; directing private expenditure is critical, not just in this country, but around the world.

Robert Key: In seeking to win the hearts and minds of our electors on the economic logic of the Stern report, will the Secretary of State confirm to those who argue that there is really no point in us in the United Kingdom doing anything because it will not make any difference if China and others are not doing it, that the average African consumes one sixth of the energy that we in this country consume? Also, as we approach the annual Christmas electronic binge, will he suggest that we look at ourselves for an example, before we say that there is nothing that we can do?

David Miliband: I think that I might be able to arrange to use certain offices for a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), so that they can try to persuade each other. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) is absolutely right that we have a responsibility to take action. But, in an age of $60 and $70 dollar oil prices, it is also in our economic interests to take action. Energy efficiency is the most obvious win-win that I have ever seen.

Helen Goodman: The Stern report is most welcome, and it is an excellent example of this Government's substantive approach to the problem under discussion. My constituents in Bishop Auckland find it absolutely incomprehensible that a rail ticket to London is three times more expensive than a plane ticket to Rome. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about when he thinks that aviation will come into the EU trading system?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I were in Berlin the week before last, talking to our German counterparts in anticipation of their presidency of the EU next year. Our position is that aviation needs to come into the EU emissions trading scheme as soon as possible, and we are looking forward to the Commission producing its proposals on when that should happen, and we shall certainly be pushing for as early entry as possible.

Stewart Hosie: May I welcome the publication of the Stern review and the Secretary of State's statement, in particular his comments on domestic action, and can I share with him my sense of urgency? When he introduces the enabling legislation that he discussed, can he also produce detailed proposals, which are thus far missing, to do many things, not least to reduce the cost of connectivity to the grid, so that we can finally harness the carbon-free offshore wind power in the north and west of Scotland, which will thereby lead to the carbon reductions that we all wish to see?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In the energy review that was published in July, there was extensive discussion both of planning issues and of some of the other barriers to micro-generation and selling into the grid. I can assure him that there is a study going on with Ofgem, the regulator—and, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy assures me, with the Department of Trade and Industry as well—to address those barriers to that sort of renewable energy, which is so important.

Mike Hall: My right hon. Friend is aware that one of the most effective ways of reducing carbon emissions is to convince high energy-using British companies to convert to electricity produced by combined heat and power. Can he give an assurance to the House that those companies that have already converted to CHP, thus effecting massive reductions in their carbon emissions, will not be penalised in phases 2 and 3 of the EU emissions trading scheme, as they have been in phase 1?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I think that I am right in saying that CHP can boast a 40 per cent. energy efficiency gain. I know that he met my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment to discuss that, and I know that there are particular constituency interests as well, as there are some innovative companies in his area. Certainly from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry, there is a real commitment to using the energy review and its processes to push forward the agenda on CHP.

Nick Hurd: Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government share the view, expressed in the Stern report, that a global stabilisation target of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide or its equivalent is almost out of reach, and that we have to settle for a range between 500 and 550 parts per million, even though that appears to accept the probability of temperature increases of at least 2 degrees, which was previously thought to be a dangerous tipping point?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. All that I want to say at this stage is that we agree with Sir Nicholas that staying below 450 parts per million looks well nigh impossible, because according to the latest data, there are already 430 parts per million of CO2 or its equivalent in the atmosphere, and according to Sir Nicholas's estimate, that figure is rising by 2 to 2.5 parts per million per year. Equally, once we reach 550 parts per million, there is a likelihood—a better than 50:50 chance—of catastrophic climate change in the second half of this century, and every step that we take between 450 and 550 parts per million makes that likelihood greater. So I would not want to pluck a figure out of the air and suggest that it is "safe" and other figures are not. What is clear from Sir Nicholas—perhaps this point lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question—is that we must keep the figure as low as possible and take action as early as possible.

Doug Henderson: I am sure that everyone in the House—I hope—recognises the importance of setting an example if we are to make any progress in the international forums. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the need to argue for the establishment within the European Union of an international body with powers such as those that the International Monetary Fund possesses, so that it can monitor developments in reaching international agreements, make suggestions and conduct an international education programme?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks as a former Europe Minister and I share his commitment to a big role for the European Union in tackling this issue. Let me reflect on his point about a new body in Europe and speak to or write to him.

Charles Walker: I welcome the Government's plans to reduce carbon emissions. Bearing it in mind that growing economies like ours and the emerging ones of India and China are energy hungry, what role does the Secretary of State see for nuclear power in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels?

David Miliband: As the energy review made clear, nuclear power constitutes just under 20 per cent. of the total electricity supply. We believe that it is right that we start by reducing demand and promoting energy efficiency, but equally, if there comes to be a choice between oil, gas and nuclear, for me, as the Secretary of State pursuing climate change objectives, it is obvious that nuclear has the lowest carbon emissions of those three sources. We have also made it clear, however, that it is not for the public purse to subsidise nuclear investment; public investment should be restricted to renewable technologies that are further from the market. We are also clear that, in a world where carbon has a price, the economics of nuclear versus other energy sources changes.

Eric Joyce: My right hon. Friend will be aware of Scottish Power's and Scottish and Southern Energy's plan to build a power link to carry renewables from Beauly, in the north of Scotland, to Denny, in my constituency. Does he agree that such projects are crucial to our ability to hit our targets?

David Miliband: I would probably be wise not to venture into commenting on individual projects, but the general point that my hon. Friend makes is a very important one. I know that he has campaigned for a long time on the importance of renewable energy and renewable electricity, and I support him 100 per cent. in that drive.

Douglas Hogg: On taxation, may I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said earlier? While UK tax policy may well have a role to play, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that climate change should not be used as a cover for increasing net taxation in the United Kingdom, and that the introduction of any green taxes must be balanced by a net reduction in other taxes?

David Miliband: The Chancellor addressed this issue this morning when he pointed out that, for example, the climate change levy has been balanced by a significant reduction in employer national insurance contributions, and the same is true of the landfill tax. As I said earlier, at every stage of our tax and spending policies the Government have pursued the principle of fairness.

David Anderson: My right hon. Friend referred to domestic action. Does he agree that it would simply be daft to reverse long-standing developments that are helping us to build a stable, green, environmentally sound economy, by allowing the short-term exploitation of open coal sites, as is being proposed in my constituency? That will have a drastic impact on an area that has been devastated by the coal industry and is trying to move forward.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important issue and, as a fellow north-east MP, I know that he has been campaigning on the subject in the region. I can tell him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy set up a coal forum to discuss issues of precisely that kind, and I hope that the subject will be on its agenda.

Bob Russell: If the right hon. Gentleman intends to lead by example and practise what he preaches, how confident is he that he will return to the Dispatch Box in a year's time to report that, right across Government, the use of ministerial cars has declined significantly, and the use of public transport has increased significantly?

David Miliband: I would like to claim that ministerial transport carbon emissions had been reduced, because obviously that is the most important thing. I am very happy with my Toyota Prius, and I recommend it to others.

Points of Order

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are aware that many of us are concerned about the length of time taken up by both questions and answers in Question Time and in statements. I am not referring to the statement that we have just heard, but rather to business questions last Thursday, and Defence questions earlier today. I know that you sympathise on that point, because you have said that you will make a statement about the length of interventions from Front-Bench Members and others. When will that statement be made?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for raising the matter with me. May I compliment the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the way in which he answered supplementary questions? It allowed me to call a great many Back Benchers, and it was a help. The older and more experienced Secretaries of State can learn from the young. I should say, too, that today's Question Time was a case in point: I had to go beyond the rules of the House and take a further question at30 minutes past the hour, because I felt that the Ministers were taking too long in answering the supplementary questions. I hope that that will be borne in mind. On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's main point, I hope to make my statement on Wednesday. I add that Back Benchers have a responsibility, too, and they should not ask more than one supplementary question. In the new Session, we can start afresh, and I will apply the rules that I shall set out in my statement. I hope that that helps the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Douglas Hogg: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

Christopher Huhne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pointed out that there had been administrative problems to do with the publication of hard copies of the Stern review, but this morning, I was at Millbank, and I could not help noticing that a large number of my journalist former colleagues had hard copies. Could someone gently suggest to the Treasury—I understand that it is responsible for the matter—that it should practise what it preaches when it comes to outsourcing, and that if it has difficulties printing such a document, it should get someone to trot down to Prontaprint on Victoria street and make the requisite number of copies?

Mr. Speaker: I was here in the Chamber when the Secretary of State addressed the matter, and I think that we will leave it at that. The Secretary of State will deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.

BILL PRESENTED

Passenger Car (Fuel Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Information)

Colin Challen presented a Bill to introduce additional conditions on the display of information relating to passenger car carbon dioxide emissions in all promotional media relating to motor vehicles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 November, and to be printed [Bill 237].

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 20th June 2005 (Violent Crime Reduction Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments 
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 27, 1 to 26 and 28 to 118.
	 Subsequent stages 
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [ Mr. McNulty.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 13
	 — 
	Designation of alcohol disorder zones

Lords amendment: No. 27.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The Lords amendment inserts a new subsection into clause 13, which sets out the procedure for designation of an alcohol disorder zone or ADZ. It is worth briefly reminding the House of the nature of the ADZ process. In outline, designating an ADZ is a joint police and local authority decision. First, the local authority must propose an ADZ, followed by a 28-day consultation period involving licensees and the wider community. As soon as is reasonably practicable after the 28 day consultation period, the local authority and the local chief constable must publish an action plan setting out the steps that the police and licensees should take to avoid designation. The action plan will contain a number of preventive steps that licensees should take to help prevent alcohol-related crime and disorder, which will vary from one area to another. Typically, they might include premises-specific action such as introducing proof of age policies or using toughened glasses. The plan could also include financial contributions towards preventive schemes, such as the employment of a taxi marshal to avoid pinch points or putting on a late-night bus service. If licensees implement the plan, an ADZ is not designated, but if they do not comply with the steps in the action plan, the local authority may designate one.
	Non-compliance criteria for designation are as follows: if, after eight weeks following publication of the action plan steps are not taken or are not sufficient to enable the local authority to consider designation unnecessary; or if the local authority, before or after the eight weeks, is satisfied that the plan will not be implemented, that steps required are no longer being taken or that any effect is no longer being given to arrangements made in accordance with the plan.
	Having dealt with the context of ADZs, may I turn to the specifics of the Lords amendment, which covers local authority powers to designate an ADZ following publication of the action plan? The amendment reaffirms the belief that the local authority has no power to designate an ADZ if licensees have implemented the entire action plan. It imposes an additional check on local authorities, preventing them from designating an ADZ if the majority of steps set out in the action plan have been put into effect by licensees. The intention behind the amendment is not at issue. The action plan is the important objective, and we want to ensure that there is every opportunity to deliver it. However, we do not believe that the proposed subsection is needed or is workable. It is not needed, principally because the Bill does not give any powers to local authorities to designate an ADZ if an action plan has been implemented. As I have made clear to the House, local authorities can designate if licensees do not comply with the steps in the action plan.
	The proposal is unworkable, because a one-size-fits-all check would hamstring local authorities, preventing them from designating an ADZ if the majority of steps have been taken. It may be the case that the 51 per cent. of actions taken are not the most critical actions in the action plan. However, as I said, we are sympathetic to the intention behind the Lords amendment. We strongly believe that it is not needed, and would be unworkable, but the Lords' concerns can be dealt with in guidance. Clarification about the extent of local authorities' powers and the flexibility that we want in relation to the action plan will be reflected in the guidance.
	I draw the House's attention in particular toclause 16, which provides that the Secretary of State must publish guidance on ADZs, which the police and local authorities have a duty to follow. Since the debate on ADZs in another place, we have developed that guidance. In particular, I am grateful for the help of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, with which we worked to produce a piece of guidance specifically addressing that matter and other issues discussed in another place. I can offer assurances to the House that the guidance includes clarification that local authorities' powers to designate an ADZ focus on non-compliance with the action plan by licensees; local authorities cannot designate if the entire action plan has been implemented. Time is an important factor, and the action plan does not have to be implemented in full within weeks—the local authority must be satisfied that enough steps have been taken in the action plan to make the designation of an ADZ unnecessary.
	The local authority should ensure that implementation of the action plan is appropriately monitored and that it actively engages with licensees over the eight-week period. Ample warning should be given to licensees if the local authority feels that designation is appropriate. Flexibility should be shown over action plans, based on local needs. Local authorities should waive the need for compliance with all the steps set out in the published action plan where it is considered that the overall objectives of the action plan can still be delivered. I have provided more detail on what the guidance covers in a letter to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I leave the House with those assurances.

Nick Herbert: Alcohol disorder zones, which we support, are designed to deal with a serious and growing problem. Only this month, the British crime survey reported that the proportion of people saying that drunkenness was a very big or fairly big problem in their neighbourhood has risen to well over one in five. Of those who report experiencing antisocial behaviour in the previous year, nearly one in 10 say that they see drunkenness or rowdiness every day and more than a third say that they see it every week.
	Of those people worried about drunkenness, most report difficulties with noise and littering by drinkers, but, worse, nearly a third have been troubled by drunks urinating in public or fighting. Indeed, 1.2 million violent incidents are alcohol related. That is half of all violent crime. The Cabinet Office has reported that 61 per cent. of the population perceive alcohol-related violence as worsening and one in five violent crimes takes place in or around pubs and clubs. Nearly 70 per cent. of those crimes occur at the weekend. Nearly half of all victims of violence describe their assailants as under the influence of alcohol at the time. In our major cities, but also in once peaceful towns throughout the country, decent people's lives are being made a misery by wholly unacceptable behaviour that is too often fuelled by alcohol.
	The measures proposed in the Bill in relation to alcohol disorder zones, under which the establishment from which these problems emanate should contribute towards the costs of dealing with the problem, are the right ones. The Cabinet Office estimated that alcohol-related crime costs the UK £7.3 billion a year in policing, preventive services, processing offenders through the criminal justice system and the human costs incurred by the victims of crime.
	The Lords amendment, which was moved by Baroness Anelay, relates to our concern that the Bill appeared to allow local authorities to pre-empt completion of the action plans that precede alcohol disorder zones, even where progress was being made in dealing with the problem. Lords amendment No. 27 attempts to deal with that problem by preventing an ADZ from being designated if a majority of the steps in the action plan have been put into effect.
	The Government have set out their concerns about the amendment and I agree that, for instance, it would not make sense to prevent a local authority from designating an ADZ simply because a numerical majority of steps, which may be the less important ones, in the action plan have been met. Since the amendment was agreed in the other place, the Government have explained—as the Minister has today—the guidance that they have developed in consultation with the industry, which should address those concerns. In particular, the guidance states that an action plan does not have to be implemented in full, that it should be carefully monitored, that ample warning should be given by local authorities over the eight-week period if they are dissatisfied with progress, and that flexibility should be shown to meet local needs. I understand that that guidance has been sufficient to allay industry concerns and, on that basis, we will not seek to oppose the Government in rejecting Lords amendment No. 27.

Lynne Featherstone: Over the past couple of years, the Liberal Democrats have called for a levy on big late-night venues to help pay for policing and the other costs of alcohol-related disorder. Therefore, we welcome the principle of alcohol disorder zones, because the scheme implements our "polluter pays" policy. We had some concerns about the issues in relation to the action zones and the tarring of the innocent along with the guilty. However, we welcome the extra safeguards that have been put into the guidelines because we were worried about the way in which local authorities might administer the scheme.
	In Committee, we argued that there needed to be more of a causal link between behaviour and who was caught so that it could be established whether a premises or club had contributed to the alcohol-related disorder in a zone. If responsible establishments were caught in an alcohol disorder zone and forced to pay the charge—if they were effectively penalised by the irresponsibility of other establishments—it would be a disincentive for good licence holders to maintain good standards. That appears to be contrary to "Drinking Responsibly", the Government's consultation paper that is targeted at irresponsible premises.
	We, like Conservative Members of the House of Lords, were worried that the intervention trigger that a local authority would use might be inappropriate or premature. Again, the measure is designed to make people behave responsibly, so if we were to penalise those exhibiting good behaviour, we would send the message that there was no point in being an exemplary landlord. Equally, establishments included under the action plan might be fulfilling their part of the bargain, so consideration would be needed not of the numbers, but of who was doing what was required and who was reneging on the agreement for the establishments caught in a proposed alcohol disorder zone.
	The problem could be widespread because the threshold for triggering an alcohol disorder zone is extremely low. It would be difficult to find an area that has not experienced alcohol-related disorder, because it is prevalent in this country. We thus thought that it was important that councils were inhibited from moving too quickly or enthusiastically. I would have liked measurable criteria on what constituted a successful action plan. Lords amendment No. 27 would have gone some way towards alleviating concern that a local authority could act pre-emptively. Given the new safeguards in the Government's guidance, however, which will make the industry accept the way forward, Liberal Democrats are happy with the Government's proposal. If we can establish the Government's proposals vis-à-vis the way in which ADZs and action plans will work through the guidelines, Liberal Democrats have no problem with that.

Charles Walker: The introduction of alcohol disorder zones is an extremely good idea—one of the Government's better ideas. In Cheshunt, which I represent, we have a particular problem around the Old Pond area, which, on Saturday nights, can be likened to a war zone. The situation is such that during World and European cup matches, we often have numerous cavalry stationed up at the town hall in case they are required to disperse troublemakers. Fortunately, that was not necessary this year because the publicans around the Old Pond held constructive talks with the police to work out how they could control their clients and customers. That was probably a direct result of the threat of the imposition of alcohol disorder zones.
	Although this might go against some of the views held by those in another place, I do not have much sympathy with the drinks industry. It has done extremely well out of Government legislation over the past year or so. While it is doing well, it is important that it accepts that it has a responsibility to the wider community, which, by and large, does not use its establishments, yet deserves a decent night's sleep and the ability to use the streets free from the fear of being abused, mugged and having to watch people urinate against brick walls. So I welcome the Government's view. It is useful for my local council to have in its armoury the threat of designating an alcohol disorder zone. My message to Broxbourne council is that if in future it feels the need to apply such an order, it should not hesitate, as it will have my support.

Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). His advice on this matter, as on so much else, is compelling. Although I support ADZs generally, I have one concern.
	The Minister will realise that the problem is getting the various authorities to follow the advice that he gives in his guidance. That does not always happen. Does he accept that the main way of tackling alcohol-driven street antisocial behaviour has been through the under-age drinking measure that was introduced in the first year of Labour's power, the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997? That is one of the most used non-traffic laws in the country. That excellent Act could be even more effective and reduce the need for ADZs if police always followed Ministers' advice and involved parents, as the Act intended. That would enhance prevention and parental control, which we all agree is the best way forward.
	However, police do not always follow the guidance and they do not always apply that law in the way that was intended by involving the parents, so how will the Minister ensure that in the case of the Bill, the police listen to his advice and follow his guidance?
	 Lords amendment No. 27 disagreed to.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Drinking banning orders

Lords amendment: No. 1

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 26, 28 to 32, 70, 72 and 78.

Tony McNulty: In Committee in this place the Government gave a commitment to consider whether positive requirements to address alcohol misuse behaviour could be attached to a drinking banning order. On Second Reading in the other place we confirmed that we would table new clauses to that effect. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7 and 9 to 14. They enable individuals who are subject to a drinking banning order to undertake a course to address their alcohol misuse behaviour.
	Amendments Nos. 3, 8, 20, 21 and 25 make minor and technical changes to the provisions on drinking banning orders by removing the concept of "relevant persons". That removes an unintended fetter onthe courts' ability to make a DBO on conviction. The matter was helpfully drawn to our attention bythe Crown Prosecution Service, so I am sure that the amendments will be welcomed.
	Amendment No. 30 gives effect to a recommendation in the report on the Bill by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. New section 147A(9) originally provided that the Secretary of State may make an order increasing the fine for the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children set out in new section 147A(1). The fine is currently set at a maximum of £10,000. By the effect of the Licensing Act 2003, the power could be exercised using negative resolution procedures, but in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, the Bill was amended so that the fine could not be increased without the authority of both Houses of Parliament. However, the requirement to seek affirmative approval by each House is limited to increases which do not relate simply to inflation.
	Amendments Nos. 31 and 72 simply correct an unforeseen consequence of section 21 of the Licensing Act 2003. They will ensure that where a premises licence issued under the 2003 Act requires persons to be at the premises to undertake security activities, those persons will not need to be licensed by the security industry authority, unless the Private Security Industry Act 2001 requires them to be so licensed.
	Amendment No. 32 resolves an unintended problem, which was recently brought to our attention by a number of local authorities, associated with the licensing of public spaces under the Licensing Act 2003 and the use of designated public places orders under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Where a local authority holds a premises licence, or occupies or has managed for it a premises that is subject to a premises licence, a DPPO will be excluded from applying to those premises only at times when alcohol is actually being sold or supplied and for another 30 minutes thereafter. At all other times, the premises will be the subject of a DPPO. In other words, if a local authority has introduced a DPPO, it will not apply while alcohol sales are taking place. As I have said, that is a minor technical change. I am sure that the House welcomes this group of Lords amendments, because it resolves concerns expressed by local authorities on introducing DPPOs.

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman—no doubt he will shortly be the right hon. Gentleman—for that whistle-stop Cook's tour of the amendments. If I understood him correctly, he referred to a limited extension of the affirmative resolution procedure. Will he advise the House whether there is a new upper limit for the fine, which was £10,000, and, if so, what is it?

Tony McNulty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the advance news—he knows more than me. He has made an entirely fair point. The recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was simply to move from the negative procedure to the positive procedure. Nothing else will change, so £10,000 is still the upper limit. The Committee was concerned that both Houses should have the chance to debate any increases above inflation, rather than introducing the increase by the negative procedure, which would lead to the laborious process of praying against the order.

Charles Walker: Will the Minister tell the House when the upper limit was last raised? How long has it been £10,000?

Tony McNulty: To be generous to the hon. Gentleman, he is being pedantic rather than difficult—he has not created a difficulty for me. I do not know the answer off the top of my head, but if I get inspiration at some stage in the course of our deliberations, I will let him know; otherwise, I will write to him in due course.
	The amendments will improve the efficacy of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.

Nick Herbert: Our concern about alcohol disorder zones was that retailers would be penalised for disorder caused by nearby pubs and clubs and that a blanket measure could be unfair. In the main, those concerns have been allayed during the Bill's passage through Parliament. The Government have reassured us that alcohol disorder zones will be a last resort and will not become a routine intervention and that they will review the operation of alcohol disorder orders two years after implementation. We have also been reassured by amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which make it clear that draft regulations must be laid before and duly approved by this House and the other place. The other Lords amendments in this group are largely consequential and technical, and we are happy to support them.

Lynne Featherstone: I will not detain the House for long on this group of amendments. I very much welcome the amendments made in the other place.
	With regard to drink banning orders, we repeatedly made the point in Committee that merely banning an activity cannot be the whole answer. If people are not to reoffend in the same manner, rehabilitation and education are necessary for them to learn the error of their ways constructively. Our ongoing concern is that the drink banning order is an instrument to deal with a social problem, which we recognise, but still does not address the causes of that problem, and inevitably fails to produce a long-term benefit. I am therefore glad to note that the Government have listened to my arguments in this instance, and have included a provision to address the underlying reasons for the behaviour that would cause a drink banning order to be made. By including an approved course with a drink banning order, we begin to tackle the heart of the matter.
	The apparent British malaise of getting blind-drunk on a Friday or Saturday night is symptomatic of more than young people going out to enjoy themselves. That needs to be addressed. We welcome the addition to the Bill, which provides it with a great deal more balance. The provision of treatment to people who are subject to such orders cannot but benefit them. As the Minister said to the House previously, the Government have made a commitment to considering whether positive requirements to address alcohol misuse could be attached to a drink banning order. I therefore thank them for bringing forward the amendments.

Charles Walker: I, too, thank the Government for bringing forward the amendments. I did not mean to be pedantic in asking the Minister when the threshold was raised to £10,000 for those caught selling alcohol to minors. In moving from the negative to the affirmative procedure, I hope that we have a debate in the House as soon as possible. In my constituency, off-licences and shops selling alcohol to under-age children is a huge problem, which destroys families. To act as a deterrent, the upper limit of £10,000 should be raised significantly.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 26 and 28 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 23
	 — 
	Using someone to mind a weapon

Lords amendment: No. 33

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 66 and 75to 77.

Tony McNulty: Although these amendments are gathered under the general heading of "Weapons etc.", they have some important separate dimensions. I will therefore spend a little time discussing the distinct groups of amendments covered by the heading.
	Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 relate to the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon. They extend the definition of a "dangerous weapon", as stated in the Bill, to cover all specified offensive weapons. As currently drafted, the definition is more limited. We agreed to consider such an extension to the definition for the new offence, and subsequently amended the Bill in the other place to make the legislation as useful as possible. Amendment No. 37 confirms that the sentence for those aged under 21 for this offence is detention. Amendment No. 38 is a technical amendment to clarify the section to which the provision will refer.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Minister knows full well that he has considerable support for this part of the Bill, with which I entirely agree. In dealing with amendments to clauses 32 to 34, will he let the House know what undertakings, if any, have been given to those representing airsoft activities that the Government will provide them with a defence to the manufacture, sale or transfer of imitation firearms under clause 32?

Tony McNulty: I will happily do so. Both I and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), have met those from the airsoft sector—if that is an appropriate phrase—and have assured them that any such exemptions, rather than being necessary in the Bill, would be provided in regulations. We said that we were minded to move in that direction, given that the activity was relatively harmless, but that the regulations would have to be laid in the proper fashion, consulted on and then agreed or otherwise with a range of stakeholders. That is the position as of now. I have also told those representatives—and, more generally, individuals and organisations affected by this part of the Bill—that I consider it to be in everyone's broad interest for the regulations to be under way, and duly consulted on, at the earliest opportunity. If representatives of other organisations wish to meet me or my hon. Friend, or indeed both of us, we will certainly consider meeting them in due course as the regulations are consulted on.

John Bercow: I welcome the Minister's reference to the draft regulations and to consultation on them at the earliest possible opportunity. May I take it from what he has said that he is at least minded to seek to ensure that the regulations are issued before the Bill's final passage in the other place—a point on which I have focused in respect of several pieces of legislation? It seems to me that sight of such regulations in draft before the House is invited to give final approval to a Bill is of the essence.

Tony McNulty: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman in spirit and in principle. I have sought to ensure that Bills that are in my charge from start to finish deliver in that fashion, and that there is—for want of a better phrase—a road map showing what regulations and guidance are likely to follow, with as much information as possible provided during a Bill's parliamentary passage. As the hon. Gentleman will know, this Bill has not been in my charge from start to finish, but whatever remains in dispute between us and the other place will be passed up to the other place for due consideration tomorrow. Try as I might, I fear that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he wants: I cannot ensure publication of and due consultation on the regulations by this time tomorrow.

John Bercow: Might I extract from the hon. Gentleman a confirmation that in pursuit of that objective he will be at least deploying one of his usual charm offensives?

Michael Fabricant: And he has plenty!

Tony McNulty: Someone else once said in this place that when he and a colleague undertook a charm offensive, he was the charm and our colleague was the offensive. I should probably leave it at that, but I take the procedural point about the need to provide Committee members, and indeed Members of both Houses, with at least a framework or outline of any regulation, guidance and elements of legislation following Royal Assent as early as possible.
	Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 47, 61 to 65 and 77 all deal with the issue of imitation firearms and air weapons. I am happy to support Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 47 and 62 to 65, which relate to controls on firearms. Let me briefly explain the most significant controls.
	Lords amendment No. 40 removes a clause providing for controls on the sale of ammunition loading presses—devices that perform the full range of mechanical operations required to reload cartridges. The Government have accepted arguments that such operations can be carried out without specialist equipment through the use of simple tools that are available from any DIY shop. We have already included controls on the sale of primers, and given that it is not possible to reload ammunition without primers, we accept that clause 31 is no longer necessary.
	Lords amendments Nos. 41 and 47 give Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs powers to seize imitation firearms imported in contravention of the controls in the Bill. Although clause 32 makes it an offence to bring a realistic imitation firearm into Great Britain, it does not specifically contain a prohibition against their importation. Amendments Nos. 41 and 47 address that situation by establishing that the goods are liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts. A case in which that was appropriate might concern youngsters returning from a school trip abroad with banned items.
	Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 relate to defences to the ban on sale, manufacture and importation of realistic imitation firearms. Defences are provided for museums and galleries, both public and private, in relation to sales and so on to Crown servants, and for businesses to import realistic imitations solely for the purpose of modifying them to make them non-realistic—for example, for race-starting or dog training.
	Amendments Nos. 48 and 66 increase the maximum penalty for having a blade or a point in a public place or a school without good reason from two years' imprisonment or a fine, or both, to four years' imprisonment or a fine, or both. That forms part of our wider package of measures to reduce knife crime, in line with our manifesto commitment
	"to introduce tougher sentences for those involved in serious knife crime".
	Amendments Nos. 49 to 60, 75 and 76 amend in various ways the power to search individuals for weapons in schools, further education institutions and attendance centres. They prevent a head teacher from requiring a member of school staff to carry out such a search unless they are security staff and provide transparent definitions of school staff for the purposes of this Bill. They require that the other person present when a search is conducted is another member of staff of the school, FE college or attendance centre respectively. We propose that, because it is better for the second person present to be someone with a formal duty of care towards those being searched, which increases safeguards for both those being searched and the staff. They change the grounds for a search from "reasonable grounds for believing" to "reasonable grounds for suspecting". That will enable the scope for searches to include a wider range of people. A head teacher who suspects a knife is in their school, but whose information is not strong enough for believing a particular pupil has it, will still be able to search. However, it is important to note that, before searching any pupil, they must always have a suspicion that the pupil may have a knife.
	The amendments enable the National Assembly for Wales to order when powers for FE colleges in Wales come into force. They also reduce the threshold for a constable to exercise his or her powers of entry to a school and search for weapons in section 139B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. By revising that threshold to one of reasonable grounds for suspecting, we ensure that the police power to search in schools is consistent with that of school staff. That will also apply in Northern Ireland.
	I commend the amendments to the House, because by accepting them we will improve the Bill's efficacy and effectiveness.

Nick Herbert: The amendments fall broadly into two parts: those that relate to the carrying of knives and those that relate to firearms. I shall start with those relating to knives, particularly amendment No. 48.
	The Bill's provisions on knives are undoubtedly necessary. Fatal stabbings are up by nearly a fifth under this Government. Last year, 236 people were recorded as having been killed by a sharp instrument—an increase of more than 17 per cent. on the figure for 1998-99. The most common method of killing last year, representing nearly a third of all offences recorded as "homicide", related to fatal stabbings. Knives are used in 7 per cent. of violent crime. According to the British crime survey, that means that knives are used in 169,000 crimes a year, and there are three fatal stabbings for every fatal shooting.
	Almost a third of pupils have carried a knife, according to a poll conducted in 2004 for the Youth Justice Board, which says that 28 per cent. of young people in mainstream schools had carried a knife in the past year. The problem is serious and growing. It was therefore right to say, from the beginning of the Bill's passage, that the maximum penalty for carrying a knife in a public place, which is currently only two years, should be increased. We believed that it was important for Parliament to send a signal, especially to younger people, that carrying knives was unacceptable.
	It is surprising that the Government opposed us for so long because our proposal featured in their election manifesto. Page 47 states that
	"we will introduce tougher sentences for carrying replica guns"—
	and—
	"for those involved in serious knife crimes".
	Why were the proposals to increase sentences for those involved in serious knife crimes or tougher sentences for carrying a knife not included in the Bill? It is extraordinary that, only six months after the election, the Government voted against the amendment tabled on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) to increase the maximum penalty to five years. The current Home Secretary and the Minister voted against it.
	The Home Secretary is fond of accusing his opponents of talking tough, voting soft and hoping that no one will notice. If the Government talk tough by promising tougher sentences for knife crime in their manifesto and then vote against that policy only months later, that looks like talking tough and voting soft to me. It is hardly surprising that people noticed.
	Nevertheless, we welcome the change of Home Secretary and, manifestly, of heart. For whatever reason, the Government eventually conceded in another place that tougher sentences were necessary. Lords amendment No. 48 would achieve that, and we were happy to support it in the other place as we support it now. U-turns appear fashionable in the Home Office. They have happened on mergers, the control of immigrant workers from Romania and Bulgaria, the purchase of a prison ship, which was cancelled only a few months ago, and now—unnecessarily—on the important subject that we are discussing.
	The story on firearms is similar and not happy for the Government. Gun crime has doubled since they came to power. In the year when they were first elected, there were nearly 5,000 recorded firearms offences involving firearms other than air weapons. In 2005-06, the figure more than doubled to 10,000 offences. Air weapons, which the Bill covers, account for more than 1,500 injuries a year and imitation firearms are used in more than 3,000 crimes a year. We were therefore happy to support the provisions that tackled carrying such weapons, especially clause 28, which increased from 17 to 18 the minimum age at which an individual can purchase or hire an air weapon or ammunition for an air weapon.
	Nevertheless, we set out several concerns. They revolved around legitimate use of such weapons, first through historical re-enactment. Secondly, the Minister mentioned airsoft. Many of us found in our constituencies that people enjoy a legitimate recreation through that, and there was concern that the Bill could have an impact on it. I am therefore grateful for the reassurances that the Minister offered today. I understand that representatives of the Association of British Airsoft are due to meet the Minister within the next couple of weeks to discuss the matter further and I hope that their concerns will be allayed.
	Concerns were raised in this House and in the other place about pistol shooting and the potential impact on legislation of competitive target shooting and the wish to train in this country ahead of major competitions, particularly the 2008 and 2012 Olympics. I understand that the Government and various lobby groups are now in discussion on how best to use the Home Secretary's powers under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968to authorise competitors and officials to possess competition pistols for the duration of the games and special warm-up events. I hope that a satisfactory solution can be found so that our competitive teams can participate in the Olympics. It is important for legislation to recognise the interests of legitimate users.
	Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 38 are technical and we are happy to support them. Amendment No. 39 is also technical and will ensure that an entry in the table of punishments in the Firearms Act reflects the correct age limit for possessing an air weapon. We are happy to support that, too.
	Amendment No. 40 strikes out clause 31, which restricted the sale and purchase of ammunition loading presses. It was deleted in Committee only to be further amended by the Government on Report. The Minister has explained some of the reasons behind the change on loading presses.
	Amendments Nos. 41 and 47 were tabled in May in Committee on the advice of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which stated that the absence of a prohibition would leave it unable to seize a realistic imitation firearm if discovered while it was being brought into the country. The amendments establish that such goods are liable to forfeiture under customs and excise Acts and that a customs officer will be able to use his discretion in deciding whether it is necessary to seize particular goods. Those amendments seem entirely sensible.
	Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 are aimed at clarifying the defence for museums and galleries using realistic imitation weapons as outlined in clause 33. As drafted, the exemption applies only to public museums and galleries that do not distribute any profits. Amendment No. 42 removes those words, ensuring that private museums can also benefit from the exemption, and amendment No. 43 aims to iron out further deficiencies in the drafting of specific defences in the clause. As drafted, anyone selling a realistic imitation firearm to a member of the police or the armed forces would be found guilty under clause 32. By extending the defences in clause 33, the amendment would ensure that that does not happen.
	Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 deal with the problems faced by the airsoft industry and other users of imitation firearms such as dog trainers and race starters. Once again, we welcome them. Indeed, we are happy with all the amendments in the group and gladly support the Government on them.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall make only a short intervention in the debate. I earnestly ask the Minister to reflect on the path of an excellent Bill, for which the Government are responsible, as a result of long campaigning and long negotiation with those who have fought for control of the curse of imitation firearms. It is a good Bill containing some excellent parts.
	One problem now manifest is the concern of many hon. Members that the Bill may be amended by regulation, bringing into play thousands of imitation firearms that accurately resemble real firearms that would otherwise be banned under the Act. I ask the Minister to reflect on the extreme difficulties stemming from a legitimisation of airsoft weapons that, in every way, resemble lethal firearms.
	The Minister says that this is an unobjectionable and harmless activity. It might be so. Some of us might find a game that involves the tracking and "killing" of other people by adult men to be a strange pastime, but if they wish to do it and if it assists them—I see that it might assist Opposition Members—with whatever problems they have, let them do it. The problem is not what they do; the problem is what they use.
	Sales of airsoft machines are predicated on the machines being exact replicas of deadly firearms. The website of the main organisation involved suggests that it now has 22,000 members. If exemptions are going to be made to allow a group of that size to trade in imitation firearms on the internet or otherwise, a huge part of this Bill will be wrecked before it is enacted. If that happens, hundreds of thousands of people—perhaps millions—who have campaigned or supported campaigns will have to return to the campaigning ground, and an enormous advantage for this Government, which they thoroughly deserve, will be lost. In congratulating the Minister and the Department on the Bill, I ask my hon. Friend to take on board, as I know he will, the real concerns that exist throughout the country about these potential exemptions.

Lynne Featherstone: The amendments on increasing the sentence for carrying a knife or a bladed article in a public place are extremely significant. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who is no longer in his place, pointed out that, while carrying a gun carries a tariff of seven years, carrying a knife carries a tariff of only two years, yet both items kill people. He asked the then Home Secretary to consider increasing the maximum sentence for carrying a knife. The former Home Secretary agreed to examine specific measures to do so, and I am glad, therefore, that such measures have been introduced at this stage of the Bill.
	It would be strange if I did not mention in passing that the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment on Report to test the Government on the issue of knives having parity with guns. As we heard, the Conservatives tabled an amendment, which was voted on, introducing a tariff of five years for carrying a knife in a public place. Sadly, the Government voted against it, but I am glad that their view has now changed.

Mark Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that a longer sentence can be passed for stealing a bike than for being caught in possession of a knife in a public place, so there is something still fundamentally wrong with the Government's priorities? Does she further agree that more needs to be done to ensure that our schools are a safe and secure place of learning for youngsters? Given recent evidence and the number of knife incidents since schools returned in September, far more still needs to be done.

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will come to later. It is a shame that the Government could not bring themselves to vote positively on Opposition amendments at an earlier stage, but I am glad that the strengthened sentence for such a serious and prevalent criminal offence is now being introduced. It is important not just to have an appropriate maximum sentence but to put an end to the notion that carrying a knife is less serious, or does not compare with carrying a gun. Now that the House is moving towards agreement on the issue, perhaps we can agree that it is not really about what is tough and what is soft—it is what is effective that is important.
	The way in which the judiciary apply the maximum sentence will decide what is effective. Rehabilitation and education must be part of any prison sentence for carrying knives because the objective of the new measures must be to change behaviour. We must also understand the difference that a lengthened sentence will make.
	In a parliamentary question in June this year, I asked the Secretary of State how many people had been found guilty of wounding someone with a knife in each of the past five years and how many had received a prison sentence. I received the answer:
	"The specific information requested is not available as we are unable to differentiate between the weapon(s) used in the various offences of wounding when supplying data."—[ Official Report, 27 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 272W.]
	That answer was about the offence of actually using a knife, whereas we are discussing what will happen to those convicted of carrying a knife, but I argue that we need to understand and measure the effect of the new measures. I ask the Minister to ensure that we are able to track accurately who gets a prison sentence and what other punishments are meted out to those found guilty of carrying a bladed weapon in public, so that we can judge what difference the Bill makes to re-offending rates by individuals and the general incidence of the wider offence.
	The increased length of sentence gives the offence of carrying a knife in a public place a more appropriate weight. We need to be concerned, above all, with the victims of knife crime and their families. Whenthe media move on, the families are left to deal with the aftermath of the death—often of a young person. I hope that the lengthening of sentences for the offence will send a clear message about how seriously we take the issue and will have some effect on the prevalence of carrying.
	The longer sentence for the offence of carrying a knife is welcome in my constituency and others, but what will ultimately protect the public most is a reduction in the number of those carrying knives. The Minister referred to a wider package of measures, which I welcome, in the Labour manifesto that were aimed at reducing knife crime. I encourage the Government to pursue the wider agenda vigorously.
	Every new tragedy brings a spate of concern and coverage, but it is clear that young people carry knives for three reasons. First, they are afraid that if they do not carry a knife they will be vulnerable to other young people who do so, especially when out of their territory. Secondly, some young people who carry knives have few life chances, but they feel that if they carry a knife at least they will not be "dissed". Thirdly, and ludicrously, knives are fashion accessories. We need to address those causes through all the agencies—schools, youth work, police work and parents.
	We need to do a lot of work listening to young people and learn what we have to do to make them feel safe enough not to carry a knife. We need to learn what will disabuse them of the idea that it is in any way cool to carry a knife. The answers include diversion, care and attention, aspiration, education and life chances. The amendments would add deterrence and punishment to that list. Change will not be quick or easy, and it certainly will not be cheap, if we are really committed to it. The Bill will help if it is administered, enforced, measured and followed through, but I am sure that hon. Members recognise the mountain that we still have to climb if we are to change the knife culture on our streets.
	The Liberal Democrats are happy to support the amendments on weaponry, which further the intention of the Bill to address the dangers of imitation firearms, without stopping those who have legitimate reasons to use realistic firearms, for re-enactment or theatrical purposes.
	During our proceedings on the Bill, we have all come to know and understand more about weaponry in general, and airsoft in particular, than we might ever have thought necessary. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), because I, too, see no compelling reason for airsoft guns to look realistic. As he said, there are dangers in the quantity of such guns that could be available. It is said that if the gun does not look realistic it spoils the airsoft experience, although that is not something with which I particularly empathise. However, whether or not the decision is for a realistic gun, I cannot imagine that the sport would not survive.
	The real mischief is that imitation firearms prove deadly when converted, or even when mistaken for real. A police officer does not have the chance to make that distinction, so exact are the replicas—nor would the man in the street or a trader in a store—but I hope that the Bill will halt that mischief.
	The Bill has achieved an appropriate balance and includes a range of exceptions and defences, which will not inhibit or ban unnecessarily but will curtail activities where necessary. I am glad that the Government have listened to representations and the Liberal Democrats are content to support them.

Humfrey Malins: I want to say a few words about amendment No. 48, which relates to knives. As the Minister knows, I sit part-time as a Crown court recorder and as a district judge in courts across London. The single most prevalent crime, which is growing and growing and growing, is that of carrying a bladed article in a public place.
	In Committee, just over a year ago, I quoted some horrifying statistics from a Youth Justice Board survey carried out in 2004, which showed that 1 per cent. of pupils in England and Wales aged between 11 and 16 had at some time in the last year carried a knife in school for offensive reasons, and 2 per cent. for "defensive" reasons. That means that 60,000 of our children had carried a knife in school at some stage during the previous 12 months, which is horrific.
	If Members went to the courts where I sit they would realise the prevalence of the offence of carrying a bladed article in public. They should listen to the witness who says that he or she was so terrified by the glint of the steel thrust at them in the street late at night that they had nightmares for months on end, and dared not go out into the streets for fear of coming across a possible attacker.
	The House has not got properly to grips with the issue of carrying knives. I say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) that it is all very well to focus on help, guidance and education, but tell that to the person whose life has been ruined by being threatened in the street with a nasty looking knife.
	Although the amendment, which would double the possible sentence for carrying a bladed article in a public place, is welcome, have the Government really got their eye on the ball? They are increasing the sentence from two to four years. Terrific. So shall we now be sending everybody to prison for more than two years? No. The number of people sent to prison for carrying a bladed article in public is extremely low. In the last year for which figures are available, of the 5,000 to 6,000 people convicted for that offence, a paltry10 per cent. went to prison. Almost 90 per cent. of people who carry knives in public know that, if they go to court, they will not lose their liberty. Furthermore, many of that paltry 10 per cent. probably received a sentence of about two, three or four months.
	Why is changing the maximum sentence from two years to four years suddenly considered to be a piece of magic that is the answer to the problem? It is not the answer; the answer to the problem is to enforce the existing law much more thoroughly, and, respectfully, in my view this Government have failed to do that.
	About a year ago in Committee, we talked about knives in schools, and nobody could deny my figure of 60,000 schoolchildren carrying knives, so I asked a parliamentary question: how many prosecutions had there been for carrying knives in schools? Does anyone know how many there were? Out of, perhaps, 60,000 a year, there were only about 12 prosecutions. Is that a sufficient proportion?
	What about the power that the Government gave themselves in the Bill to give teachers the power to search pupils, as if that is a panacea? Teachers have already for many years had powers to bring in the police and say, "I suspect that pupil of carrying a knife, so please search them." The fact is that that is another aspect of the law that was simply not enforced. Much of our criminal law would be improved if we in this House legislated and spoke less, and saw to it that the police enforced the current law more strictly and forcefully.
	However, let us examine what happened when I suggested a year ago that we should harshen-up the penalties for carrying a bladed article in a public place. As it happened a year ago, I forget if it was me who did that, and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—although I know that I am right. It might have happened in Committee in October last year, or it might have happened on Report, when I was carrying my party's response to the Bill. The Government absolutely rubbished my suggestion that there should be tougher penalties. Let me inform the House of what was the best answer that the Government could give to my suggestion at that time, by repeating a statement by a Minister on knife crime. The Government's approach—and I gently suggest that this will not carry the day—was as follows:
	"It is essential to educate young people about the dangers and consequences of becoming involved in criminality associated with weapon-carrying and the Home Office funds and operates a number of community-based initiatives aimed at encouraging good citizenship and turning vulnerable young people away from crime."—[ Official Report, 3 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 301W.]
	I would love to be able to say to some poor complainant in a court who has had a knife shown at them, "Don't you worry, member of the public, because the Government are going to fund a few initiatives and a few training programmes." No: that is not the answer to this problem. Why on earth did the Government rubbish my approach a year ago—especially as they are, of course, now coming back to it? That is a great shame.
	I have one final message for the Minister. He is a man of the world and a reasonable man, and he knows about the world outside—I know that he does—so he understands that knife crime is a terrible threat. Therefore, he must also understand that we cannot cure this great evil by simply having a little education here, and a little help there, and a doubling of the sentence as well. He must understand that the real way to deal with this problem is to get the police and the schools to operate a zero-tolerance approach to knives. There must be a tough, harsh attitude. We must make it clear to people that knives are wrong, and that if knives are present, they will be punished. Anything less than that simply will not do.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the Government on introducing the measures, particularly those concerning the carrying of knives, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I suspect that we will have to revisit and increase the maximum sentence for carrying a knife in due course.
	I want to make two points. First, would the Minister care to join me in congratulating those in this country who take part in the sport of target shooting, wish them well in international events, particularly the Olympics, and find ways to ensure that they can train and compete on at least equal terms with those in other countries who practise the sport? We have a great tradition in it, and great prospects.
	Secondly, I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said about airsoft. However, how can we ensure that innocent children with toy guns do not fall foul of clauses such as clause 35, which deals with the specification for imitation firearms? In other words, how can we ensure that the police, in applying these new laws, use a certain amount of common sense?

Charles Walker: As one who was relieved of his walkman 25 years ago by someone claiming to have a knife, this issue is rather close to my heart. He did not actually show me the knife, but I was not going to hang around to see it, so I passed over my Sony Walkman and went home and had a good cry to my mum. However, it was a fairly frightening experience at the time.
	We are told by politicians from all parts of the House that we must be more robust in challenging youths in hoodies when they are preying on our communities, but one reason why people are scared to do so is the fear that they will produce a knife. Given what I have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), we have every reason to fear that they will. Knives are a huge concern.

Bob Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of last week's survey showing that people in this country are only half as willing as people in other European countries, such as Germany, to challenge those involved in antisocial behaviour? The reason for that is the stupidity of political correctness, which means that victims and people who challenge youths committing antisocial behaviour are more likely to be brought before the courts by the police than those youths themselves.

Charles Walker: I certainly did see that survey, and much of the problem stems from the fear of what might happen if we intervene. There have been some well-publicised cases in the past few months of young men and others with a community-minded spirit challenging local youths and ending up dead. There is also the fear that if one gets into a shoving match with such youths, one might well be arrested by the police and carted off, so better to walk on the other side of the road. However, I welcome the Government's willingness and desire to increase the maximum sentence for carrying a knife from two to four years. It is then up to judges to ensure that that maximum sentence is implemented.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woking made some very important points about schools. If I heard the Minister correctly, a school can intervene if it has reason to believe that a young person is in the possession of a knife. I hope that that does not preclude initiatives such as that in my constituency, where the police have purchased a portable knife scanner. Funnily enough, they do not catch many people with knives going through the scanner, but they do catch a lot of people who see the scanner and leave very quickly in the opposite direction. I hope that, where there is a perceived problem in a school, the police can deploy such a scanner without having to give due warning, so that the school can identify the scale of the problem and ensure that young people carrying knives are identified and the errors of their ways pointed out.
	On the question of people having the errors of their ways pointed out, I hope that the Minister can confirm that people caught carrying a knife or other blade will not be subject to conditional cautions, allowed to plead guilty and then receive a fine. These young people need to understand the severity of their actions, and that can be achieved only by their appearing in front of a county, district or magistrates court. We have got to send a clear message.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend mentions the subject of knives in school. He probably knows of the case in which Greenwich council was forced to pay £11,000 to a boy who was expelled for taking a knife to school. The council was ordered to pay his mother compensation because of the anxiety and uncertainty that she felt, and to pay £6,000 for home tuition. Is that not the world gone mad?

Charles Walker: That decision was clearly nonsense, and I would expect everyone on either side of the Chamber to regard it as such. The law is brought into disrepute by such cases. I ask the Minister to ensure that, when people are caught carrying knives, they appear before a judge or magistrate, and that prison sentences are given, so that the public can be confident that the new law to double the length of sentences is being used as a deterrent to stop people carrying knives.

Tony McNulty: First, I thank the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for his full and generous welcome for the amendments. I shall try to ignore what were, in general, rather flaccid and petty attempts at making party political points. They were entirely unnecessary, given that the House broadly accepts all the measures before us.
	I tell the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is a recorder, and the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), and for Castle Point (Bob Spink), that we are not talking about the demonisation of all our children and young people—and I do not say that to seem politically correct in any way. If the hon. Member for Woking assumes that any of the provisions are a panacea or silver bullet—I hope that that is not mixing metaphors—he is profoundly wrong, and no one on the Government Benches has said that they are. We simply say that although awareness, education and initiatives such as knife amnesties are important, they work alongside the existing law and the improvements being made to it by the Bill. Without wishing to be churlish, I suggest that he has a word with his brother judges, when such cases come before them, about the leniency, or otherwise, that he alleged. We can tackle the scourge of knives only if all those matters are considered duly.
	As to the petty party political points, everyone in the Chamber knows that there has been significant public and other political debate on the subject in the period between the Bill leaving the Chamber and being considered in the other place. It is only right and proper that a responsible and reflective Government should take account of those— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) laughs, as though the matter were trivial. This is a serious matter, which should be dealt with accordingly—and it has been dealt with in that way.
	I shall ignore some of the other points made, which could best be described as rambling sophistry, if that language is not unparliamentary, particularly those made by the hon. Member for Woking. These are serious matters that should be dealt with in a serious way. On the serious point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), regulations are not simply put before the House and rubber-stamped. I understand that there will be scope for both Chambers to discuss airsoft and other matters when the regulations come before the House. I do not share his overall doom-and-gloom position on the integrity of the Bill, in terms of what we do following consultation on airsoft. People will have a chance to return to that subject and others when those regulations come before the House—that will be sooner rather than later—once the Bill secures Royal Assent. With that, I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 66 agreed to.

Clause 46
	 — 
	Sale and disposal of tickets by unauthorised persons

Lords amendment: No. 67.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 68, 69, 71, 73, 74 and 79 to 118.

Tony McNulty: As was the case with the last clutch of Lords amendments, although this grouping has the broad heading of "Miscellaneous and minor amendments", some of the amendments in it deal with important matters. Lords amendments Nos. 67 to 68 and 105 to 110 simply close loopholes in the legislation on ticket touting that are apparently being exploited by touts. Lords amendments Nos. 69 and 79 are on the power to enter and search the homes of registered sex offenders. In both cases, we agree with the Lords in their amendments.

Paul Beresford: Proposed new section 96B(10), which would be inserted by Lords amendment No. 69, says:
	"'senior police officer' means a constable of the rank of superintendent or above."
	Is there a reason for choosing superintendent, or could many police forces consider a chief inspector, or a detective chief inspector, a "senior police officer" for management reasons?

Tony McNulty: That is a fair point. My understanding is that the provision gives an appropriate definition of "senior police officer" that is readily accepted across the piece in policing matters, and in legislation. If there is any other specific reason for defining the term in that way, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on the point, but that is my understanding.
	We urge the House to agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 71, 73 and 74, which deal with a range of issues concerning the Security Industry Authority and sports grounds. I assure the House that Lords amendments Nos. 80 to 104 and 111 to 118 are—I know that colleagues bristle when they hear a Minister say this—minor and technical amendments to the schedules, and they are necessary if we are to achieve the policies already discussed. Although the Lords amendments are grouped together under the heading "Miscellaneous and minor amendments", they are important, and we freely agree to them, as they will improve the efficacy and effectiveness of the Bill—indeed, that is the thrust of our response to all the amendments today. I commend them to the House.

Nick Herbert: I agree with the Minister that the amendments are more than just technical, and some of them are on important issues. I shall highlight just four. First, I should mention Lords amendments Nos. 67 and 68 on ticket touting. It was anomalous that the ticket-touting legislation did not apply to football matches. That was a particularly serious lacuna in the law, because the authorities' inability to deal with ticket touting could cause public order issues, as it can compromise arrangements for segregating rival supporters. It therefore makes sense to close that loophole in the law.
	The second amendment that I think is significant is No. 69, which is on "Power of entry and search of relevant offender's home address". We should not allow the amendment to be agreed to without recognising that it gives police significant additional powers relating to the notification requirements for sex offenders, or those who are cautioned for sex offences. The concern is that offenders are seeking to frustrate the process of risk assessment that the police must undertake on them. It is entirely legitimate for us to consider ways of dealing with offenders' attempts to get round the various notification requirements, although the Government resisted doing so for some time. They are dealing with the problem by giving the police a pre-emptive power to enter premises and search the homes of the sex offenders who are on the register, even in circumstances that fall short of suspecting that an offence of whatever kind has been committed. The House should be wary of giving the police such pre-emptive powers. However, safeguards have been built into the amendment.
	First, the police should have a warrant issued by a magistrate to enter the offender's home. Secondly, the application must be made by a senior police officer, whose rank does not fall below that of superintendent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley(Sir Paul Beresford) pointed out, that is a senior rank, and thus a significant safeguard. Thirdly, the constable must have sought entry to the premises in question and been denied access by the offender on at least two previous occasions. Subject to those safeguards, we accept that the wrong that the Lords amendment seeks to address is a serious one. It is extremely important that the authorities are able to monitor sex offenders properly, and it is important for public confidence, so we welcome the additional power.
	Lords amendments Nos. 81 to 104 deal with what Lord Addington described in the other place as
	"one of the cock-ups of history."
	The application of the Private Security IndustryAct 2001 was broader than was intended as, inadvertently, it covers stewards employed by the governing bodies of clubs at sporting grounds. Lord Pendry said in the other place:
	"There is no evidence of criminality or poor standards in stewarding services at sporting events, yet the cost to licence them under the Security Industry Authority would be prohibitively high."— [ Official Report, House of Lords,16 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 636, 634.]
	The provision caused problems when important events were held at venues such as Twickenham, Lords and Wimbledon. We do not want to increase costs unnecessarily, as there is no evidence that those stewards should be accredited to the same standards as other individuals whom the Act was intended to cover. We therefore welcome the removal of their inclusion.
	Finally, Lords amendments Nos. 105 to 110 amend schedule 2, which deals with football banning orders. Some individuals have attempted to make the application of the orders difficult, and have avoided compliance, whether intentionally or otherwise, by changing their name, address or passport details. People should not be able to act in that way, so we welcome the power provided by the amendments. The remaining Lords amendments are consequential and technical amendments, which we are happy to support.

Paul Beresford: I welcome Lords amendmentNo. 69, and I am slightly at odds with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).
	The Lords amendment is familiar, because in many ways it resembles a private Member's Bill that I introduced, as well as amendments that I tabled in Committee when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was proceeding through the House. The Minister knows this but, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, I should say that a police requirement is required because a few predatory paedophiles are among the most devious, unco-operative, persistent reoffenders to appear before the courts. Many of them know that the loophole in the law offers them an opportunity. When the police knock on their door, and ask for admittance so that they can risk-assess them, they just close it. Superintendent Matt Sarti of the Met told me about a case involving an individual who owns a block of flats. Most of the flats are inhabited by single mothers with children, but that individual believes that his front door is the door at the front of the block. The police know from his history that it is extremely likely that he is engaged in skulduggery and paedophile activities, but they cannot enter his flat. They have no reason to issue a warrant, so the Lords amendment is a necessity, because it provides another arm to protect children.
	May I ask the Minister a few questions? First, I am sorry that it has taken so long to introduce the provision, as Conservative Front and Back Benchers have pressed for it for a considerable time. I am relieved that it has been introduced, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained why it has taken so long. Secondly, I have touched on the rank of the police officer involved. The Met is probably the only force with a child protection unit headed by a superintendent. Other child protection units are smaller and, at best, are headed by a detective chief inspector. It is too late now, but if there was an opportunity for second thoughts, it would be desirable to lower that rank from superintendent to chief inspector to provide flexibility, good management and reduced bureaucracy.
	Thirdly, alternatives were discussed with the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) and his officials. There was a simple alternative to the approach that we have taken—it should be a requirement for the risk-assessed individual to show a duty to co-operate, for example, by allowing the police to enter their accommodation and by co-operating in the risk assessment. Lords amendment No. 69 permits the police to enter, but a problem arises, as co-operation could cease. If the individual is difficult and does not allow them to enter, their failure to co-operate with the risk assessment is guaranteed. The Minister's predecessors and some officials accepted that there was a sensible alternative, so the provision is a missed opportunity. I believe—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the Lords amendment was worded to match legislation that is either pending or has been introduced north of Hadrian's wall.
	All in all, I welcome the provision more strongly than my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs. It is overdue, and it is a necessity. Those individuals are progressively learning that they can buck the law and stop the risk assessment. Now, the police will be able to get in.

Tony McNulty: First, on the broad issue of football banning orders, it would be remiss not to put on record the fact that they have been hugely successful, not least in managing the behaviour of English fans at the World cup in Germany in the summer. It is therefore appropriate to tweak them to make them even more effective. Secondly, I accept the broad thrust of the points made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), but the measure is broadly in alignment with Scottish measures, and provides another method for tackling the problem. None the less, I welcome his welcome, which was stronger than the welcome from his hon. Friend the Memberfor Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). Surprisingly or otherwise, the point that I made about the rank of superintendent rather than chief inspector was right without any assistance from the officials in the Box.  [ Interruption. ] Indeed, I was shocked, but it was an acceptable legal definition of a senior officer.
	Beyond those simple points, the Lords amendments deal with matters of substance—they are not a catch-all series of technical amendments—that have received ample debate in both the Lords and the Commons. Once again, the Bill will be better for the inclusion of the Lords amendments, which I commend to the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 118 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 27: Mr. Alan Campbell, Michael Fabricant; Lynne Featherstone; Siobhain Mcdonagh and Mr. Tony McNulty; Mr. Tony McNulty to be Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.— [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Energy Supply

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Huw Irranca-Davies.]

Alistair Darling: When I published the energy review in July, I said that I hoped that the House would have an opportunity to discuss not just the conclusions of that review, but the security of gas supplies this winter, following the concerns that there were last year because of the more rapid decline in North sea gas than had previously been anticipated. This Adjournment debate provides the House with that opportunity.
	Of course, it just happens that the report by Sir Nicholas Stern was also published today. Sir Nicholas's work is a major contribution to the understanding of the economic issues surrounding climate change. He presents a number of ways in which we can tackle that. In a curious sort of way, the conclusion of his review is essentially optimistic, because there is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if we act now and if we act internationally. The energy review was part of that. If we take the deliberate and necessary policy choices, we can make a difference. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said today, we need to have an economy that is both pro-growth and pro-green, and we can have an economic policy that is also an environmental policy.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also announced that a climate change Bill will be introduced in the coming Session so that we can become a leading low-carbon economy, which is essential for the future. That Bill will help to provide a clear framework so that we can meet our long-term climate change targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050, with real progress by 2020.

Charles Walker: Will the Secretary of State accept that, as we reduce our carbon emissions, it will be critical to maintain the UK's global competitiveness so that we can still create wealth, which runs the NHS, and jobs, which support families?

Alistair Darling: Yes, but I do not think that the two are competing objectives. We can and should have an economy that is competitive, but that also takes account of the environmental consequences of climate change. One of the central findings of the Stern report was that there is an economic cost to doing nothing. It is far more efficient and effective to take action to tackle climate change, which will, in turn, help us to maintain our competitive position. There is not a polarisation of views there. That is one of the points that I put to members of a high level group in Brussels today—some of whom, coming from other countries in Europe, seemed to think that there was a choice to make. I think that that is a false choice and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
	The debate supplements the second annual report to Parliament on the security of gas and electricity supplies, which was laid before the House on 12 July. Since May, I have tabled three written statements setting out the position. I want to summarise the position for the record. In relation to gas, the recent tightness in the UK supply-and-demand balance for gas has largely arisen because supplies from the North sea have declined faster than expected, although the North sea remains our largest source of gas and is likely to do so for some considerable time.
	The national grid winter consultation report was published by Ofgem in September. It states that the gas supply-and-demand balance for the coming winter could be tight, especially in the first part of the winter. However, there are grounds for some optimism—although we are right to be wary and vigilant—because some of the uncertainties that existed earlier this year in relation to major new infrastructure have been much reduced since I issued my first written statement in May.
	The Langeled pipeline between Norway and this country was opened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Norway and it now has gas flowing from Norway. The Balgzand to Bacton pipeline will see gas flowing from the Netherlands. It remains on course to begin operation in December. The Belgian interconnector has been completed ahead of schedule. In addition, work is continuing on the Teesside offshore liquefied natural gas importation project. The storage facilities in Rough in the North sea and at Humbly Grove in Hampshire are now available and are both full up with gas.
	Although there are grounds for optimism, we are right to remain vigilant. Although the question last winter might have been whether there was adequacy of gas supply, clearly there is concern about the consequent increase in gas prices, which was partly caused by that uncertainty a year ago. As ever in this country, there is uncertainty about the weather. Although the national grid winter consultation report indicates that, under all likely weather forecasts, we will be able to meet demand, the Met Office is forecasting a near average winter. Clearly, if it was colder than average, that would have consequences too.
	Compared with last year, there are grounds for being more optimistic, although we have to face the consequences of higher prices than we have had in the past. The gas supply situation should ease further next year, because we will have access to gas supplies from the new Norwegian Ormen Lange field and the new liquefied natural gas importation facilities at Milford Haven.

Bob Spink: Will the Secretary of State allow me a parochial note and accept that we must balance the need for increased security of gas supply with the need to protect local communities—particularly when they include residential homes, schools and businesses—from unacceptable increases in danger as a result of the importation of LNG, such as may be the case if plans go ahead for the importation of LNG from ships to Canvey Island? That is causing great concern. Will he agree to a public inquiry—held on Canvey Island—if that goes forward?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that safety is important. There are procedures and safeguards in place to make sure that safety is very much at the front of the minds of those who consider planning applications. I am sure that he would agree that it is necessary to ensure that we have security of supply, because there are obvious consequences if we do not. The importation facility at Milford Haven, and those in other areas, are important.
	On electricity, earlier this year the consultation report showed a generating plant capacity—an excess in capacity—of 22 per cent. in September. The National Grid will monitor that level of generating ability. Obviously, unplanned outages, such as those already announced in relation to British Energy, will have some effect on the margin, although at the time of the announcement, it was clear that there were some nuclear plants that would come back into operation. Indeed, some have come back into operation since that time. There is an operating margin precisely to allow for unplanned outages. We are hopeful that electricity supplies this winter will be more than sufficient.
	I said earlier that, clearly, prices have increased. For several years, they were a lot lower than in Europe. Indeed, some of our prices still are lower than those in Europe. However, the gas that is now being sold to consumers—both industrial and domestic—was purchased at a time when the wholesale price was much higher. As a result, prices have gone up. Ofgem will keep a close eye on that to make sure that, when prices start to come down, the gains are passed on to consumers. That is important. It is also important that we see greater transparency and liberalisation in the continental European markets, to drive down costs. That has been a concern of ours. I have made representations to the Commission, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. There are signs that the Commission is vigorously pursuing those countries where the market is not as transparent as it ought to be.

Robert Key: That is an extremely important point. I entirely agree with the Secretary of State, but does he really think that the Commission is serious about deregulation of the European market? After all, we see the takeover of British companies by, in particular, French companies, but it is impossible to go the other way. One does not find any British-owned energy companies operating elsewhere. There appears to be absolutely no will, either in Germany or France, to see anything like the positive progress that he suggests.

Alistair Darling: There is evidence that the Commission is pursuing countries and companies to ensure that there is greater transparency. It was responsible for seizing several papers and documents that might throw some light on what happened last winter. The Commission itself is genuinely committed to a more liberal market, although it must be said that there are countries in the European Union that have shown a lack of enthusiasm for liberalising markets over the past few months and years. Any gain that they may get will be in the short term. In the long run, liberalised energy markets will be absolutely essential if Europe is to remain competitive.
	The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that some action taken by member states has verged on the protectionist. In some cases, it has been downright protectionist. That is regrettable because a single market should be just that. There should be a liberalised market for energy because that is the only way of benefiting both domestic and industrial consumers. We will do our best to ensure that there is such a market and I think that the Commission will enforce it rigorously. I just hope that the Governments of other member states also see the wisdom of liberalised markets so that we can get lower prices in the long term.
	For the sake of completeness, I should tell the House that Richard Lambert, the director general of the CBI, and I chair a meeting of industrial users and others so that we can monitor the supply of gas, electricity and energy. Prices are a particular concern, although I hope that they will fall as a result of the actions that we have taken and because the market is beginning to realise that an adequate supply is coming through due to the various measures that I set out. As I said, Ofgem will monitor the market carefully to ensure that reduced costs incurred by suppliers are passed on to consumers at the earliest possible opportunity.
	The second part of my speech relates to the energy review. I set out the Government's proposals in July and, as I said in the summer, we will publish a White Paper setting out our concluded views. The White Paper is likely to be published in March 2007.

Mark Tami: We have had many reviews, and the last review identified many of the problems that we are facing. The problem in the past was that we did not tend to act on those reviews, or that if we did, we took short-term action. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give us that something will happen and that that will be for the long term, rather than the short term?

Alistair Darling: We certainly have to act because, as I said in the summer, we do not have the option of just letting things drift along. Many of this country's generating plants are reaching the end of their lives, so a decision must be taken on how to replace them. As I said in July, our two overriding imperatives are the need to tackle climate change and the need to ensure that we have a secure supply of energy with affordable prices. That means that we must take action now, which was one of the reasons why I said in the summer that nuclear had to be part of the mix. I was critical of the official Opposition for saying of nuclear, "Let's leave it and come back to it later", because I do not think that we have that option now. Anyone who has any doubt about that should read Sir Nicholas Stern's report and find out the urgency of the situation. We anticipated the energy review in the 2003 energy White Paper. We will publish our concluded views in March, and the document will provide a framework that will enable us to proceed and ensure that we have not only greener energy, but more secure supplies of energy.

Paddy Tipping: The energy review accepts that indigenous coal is important for the security of supply. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister for Energy examine closely the position of UK Coal and its relationship with generators such as EDF and Drax? At the moment, the contract between the company and the generators is at less than the world price. As a result, UK Coal cannot invest in the future of deep-mined coal and the three pits in Nottinghamshire look very much at risk. Is there anything more that the Secretary of State can do to bring the parties together?

Alistair Darling: We said in the energy review that we wanted to establish a coal forum along the lines of PILOT, which is the forum between the oil industry and the Government. PILOT was set up a few years ago and has been highly successful at allowing the Government and the industry to discuss long-term strategy and changes that we might make to maximise the extraction of oil and gas from the North sea. We have the same model in mind for the coal industry. However, we cannot broker contracts between power and coal suppliers.
	I have read the letter from the coal company to which my hon. Friend referred in which it is suggested that the Government might like to intervene. UK Coal and the operators of any power station need to understand that the only people who can sort out the contract are the parties to it. The Government are not going to stand in the shoes of either party to the contract. We can encourage people to talk—I certainly think that they should talk—if problems need to be resolved, because it is in all our interests that we maintain the ability to mine and supply coal in this country. However, alongside that, the power companies must be satisfied that they are getting the right price. I make it clear to the House and the parties concerned that if there are contractual differences or difficulties, the parties must sort them out—the Government cannot do that. The coal forum will operate at a slightly higher level—a strategic level—as does the forum for the oil industry. I expect the first meeting of the coal forum to take place in November.

David Hamilton: Although my right hon. Friend says that he does not want to interfere, will he be mindful of the fact that if we did not have UK indigenous coal, we would have to look at ways of importing coal? That would bring a different dimension to the situation because we would have to get that coal from the dockyards to the power stations, which would lead to major costs for the Government.

Alistair Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I am clear that if there is a contract between two parties, they must sort it out. In my experience, if a third party offers to stand between two parties, it is often an impediment to finding an agreement. The two parties in this case are perfectly capable of reaching an agreement. However, they will need to sit down and talk about it. The Government cannot do that, but I hope that the difficulties can be resolved. I agree with my hon. Friend in that it would be a great pity if we lost the ability to mine the coal in this country that is still to be mined.

David Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the slight majority of UK electricity used last winter was generated by coal-fired power stations? We have existing technology for co-firing biomass and improving thermal efficiency, which will drive down the carbon emissions from coal to the extent that it will be able to play a significant role in the medium and long term, especially given the long-term investment in carbon capture. Some 800 million tonnes of coal are waiting to be mined in north-east Leicestershire, so there is a future for coal and coal miners.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. There was a substantial switch from gas to coal last winter because of the high price of gas. I have always said that this country's mix of energy supply has served us well. It would be a great pity if we put all our eggs in one basket, or even two or three baskets, because we need to ensure that we have such a mix. There are many examples, such as carbon capture, clean coal and biomass, of how we can still burn coal, yet significantly reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere. Coming back to this business for the last time, however, I am fully aware of the contractual differences, but the only people who are going to resolve them are the parties to the contract. The Government cannot do that.

Bob Spink: Will the White Paper deal with the issue of the Government promoting or making investment in the new carbon capture and storage technologies, in which the UK can lead the world? Will the Government lead the change of regulation needed to enable marine storage of carbon so that we can move forward with large scale demonstration plants, which would be very helpful to the environment and may also help the economy?

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we emphasised the importance of carbon capture in the energy review published in the summer, and we undertook to publish further proposals. Since that time, we have also put forward proposals to encourage research into producing greener forms of energy. We will match the money raised by the private sector with Government money to encourage innovations such as carbon capture.

Peter Luff: The Secretary of State is being remarkably generous in giving way. May I draw him back to the White Paper about which he was speaking? I welcome the return of a Green Paper to the policy making process, which the document effectively is. The most important consultation, on the policy framework for nuclear, ends tomorrow. There are a stack of other consultations in the document. What framework is the right hon. Gentleman putting in place to ensure that all those consultations arising from the report take place, or will the White Paper do that? It is important that the consultations promised are seen through and reported.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Especially in an area like energy, where we are dealing with 30 to 40 years' development, we need to get it right. We need to move at a fairly fast pace, because we do not have the time to spend years thinking about all the possibilities. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as he knows, we are consulting on a number of strands of policy, following the energy review in the summer. Later this week we will publish a document on distributed energy. The strands will all be brought together for the White Paper.
	In the summer I said that the White Paper would be published around the turn of the year, which is political-speak for March. It is rather like the political autumn, although this year the real autumn and the political autumn appear to be moving together for the first time in years. I concluded that we should not publish till March because I want to get all the consultations out, properly considered, and to reach a concluded view. That will provide the necessary certainty. Many hon. Members pointed out that more than anything else, the industry wants certainty. We can provide that.
	I am conscious of the fact that this is a short debate and I shall not speak for much longer. All Members in the Chamber will no doubt have read the energy review, so I do not need to go through it line by line. It is important that we make progress. When I spoke last summer, I said that if we can implement the review, we believe that it would bring about a reduction of between 19 million and 25 million tonnes of carbon by 2020. By any standard, that would be a significant contribution to tackling climate change. The other proposals that we set out would also make a significant contribution to ensuring that we have secure, affordable supplies of energy.
	In the past few years, energy has assumed greater importance than it has had in this country for many years. I am sure that we will have a number of debates such as this in the future. It is important not only that we get it right, but that we take action as quickly as possible to tackle climate change, meet the objectives set out in the Stern report today, and make sure that we have secure supplies of affordable energy.

Charles Hendry: I start by offering the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is away from Westminster today for a long-standing commitment which he was unable to change. That in no way diminishes the importance that he or we attach to the subject.
	As the Secretary of State said, there could not be a more appropriate day for us to have the debate, following the publication of the Stern report this morning. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Nicholas for his outstanding work. However, it is disappointing that we have only a half-day debate on energy supply. Had there been a full day's debate, many other colleagues would have been keen to take part and the Secretary of State would have been able to deliver the whole of his speech, rather than the synopsis that he ended up giving us. That would have been beneficial to the whole House.
	We can all agree that it is good that energy is right at the top of the political agenda and the news agenda. If one mentioned energy issues a few years ago, people's eyes glazed over and they wondered how to get out of the conversation, whereas now it is the subject that everybody wants to talk about. People are aware that they should be doing more, but they are not sure how to do so. The public are in a state of enthusiasm with confusion. We want to encourage them to do a good deal more than is being done.
	There is substantial common ground between the Opposition and the Government on climate change and security of supply, but we have concerns about the urgency with which the Government are addressing some of the issues. As the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said, we need to know that long-term decisions will be taken. Three years ago we had a White Paper. This year there was the energy review, leading to another White Paper next year, with a few consultations and a forum that has not met in four or five months. A solid agenda for action must emerge from the process.

Mark Tami: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and thank him for his comments about the point that I made, but how does he set that against his party's views on nuclear power? If we are to move forward, we must make choices now, and not just say, "We'll wait and see; something may happen in the future", which as I understand it is Conservative party policy.

Charles Hendry: I will come to that in much more detail in due course. The Secretary of State misrepresented our position on nuclear power, as he is entitled to do, but he has said that there would be no Government subsidies for nuclear, just as we have said. It is difficult to see how in his scenario people would make investment decisions that they would not be prepared to make in ours. We have said that we do not favour nuclear power as the way of solving the problems, but we do not rule it out. If people wish to make that investment, knowing the risks involved and knowing that there will be no subsidy, they are free to do so.

Paddy Tipping: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his leader, who describes nuclear power as a last resort? If it is a last resort, by definition it will never happen.

Charles Hendry: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We wish to put the emphasis on renewables. There are extraordinary opportunities for renewables to play an enormously important part, but the primary responsibility of the Government is to keep the lights on. If that means new nuclear power stations being built, we would accept it, as a last resort. We accept that nuclear energy may have a part to play in delivering the Government's obligations.

Peter Luff: I have no wish to cause my hon. Friend any embarrassment, but ironically, Conservative party policy for an improved carbon trading mechanism and for a capacity market are more likely to bring forward nuclear power more quickly than the Government's proposals on carbon emissions trading.

Charles Hendry: As we have said, it is for industry to make decisions. The industry has told us that it can make decisions to invest in new nuclear power stations without subsidy, taking account of the full long-term cost and dealing with the long-term decommissioning and waste issues. If the industry can do that, it will be entitled to do so. We will not seek to stop it, but we make no secret of the fact that that is not our preferred option. If we can close the energy gap by using sources of renewable power, we believe that that is the better way of doing it. We also believe that that is what the public want.

Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Hendry: I shall make progress and return to the matter later.
	The scale of the challenges facing us is immense. The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's primary energy demand will rise by 60 per cent. between 2002 and 2030, with two thirds of that increase coming from developing countries. Last year the world's population grew by 74 million—an increase of a little more than 1 per cent. The use of oil grew by 1.3 per cent., of gas by 3.3 per cent. and of coal by6.3 per cent. As a global community we consumed9 billion tonnes of oil equivalent. Most of us cannot envisage 9 billion tonnes of oil equivalent, but we can all agree that it is not sustainable. As demand rises, capacity in the UK will decline. Approximately 30 per cent. of the UK's existing capacity is scheduled to be retired over the next 20 years, including all nuclear power stations except Sizewell B, which will leave a significant energy gap.

Bob Blizzard: As the hon. Gentleman has said, about 20 per cent. of our electricity is currently generated from nuclear power, and a good number of nuclear power stations will close. Bearing in mind what the Conservative party has said in the past about not liking wind power, and given that it will take a few years until tidal and solar power are commercially developable, is it realistic for nuclear power to be a last resort?

Charles Hendry: It is entirely realistic to say that we have a preference for renewables and that we want to see what can be achieved through renewables. However, if the lights stayed on at the end of the day because of investment in new nuclear power stations, we would have to accept it. Furthermore, we are not ruling out people making their own investment decisions. If businesses want to invest, as some have indicated, on the understanding that there will be no Government subsidy—they must take account of the full long-term costs—we will not stop them. Our preference is absolutely clear: we want primary growth in renewables, which is the best way forward for this country.

Alistair Darling: In the next 20 years or so, it is likely that the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear will decrease from about 20 to 7 per cent. What proportion of electricity does the hon. Gentleman think can be generated by renewables over that same period, especially given that his party is committed to getting rid of the renewables obligation?

Charles Hendry: The Secretary of State is deliberately provoking me in a way in which he would not allow himself to be provoked. He has always refused to set a target on proportions—the only exception was his target on renewables, but when it became evident that the target of 10 per cent. by 2010 would be missed, he shifted it to 20 per cent. by 2020. We do not believe in setting such targets. We are setting out a framework in which people would invest, the key to which is putting a price on carbon.

Alistair Darling: I did not ask the hon. Gentleman to set a target; I asked him a simple question. Given that the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear will be6 or 7 per cent. in 20 years' time, how much more energy does he think will be generated by renewables, if that is his option of choice? He has pledged to scrap the renewables obligations that is probably the reason why we have our existing renewables.

Charles Hendry: The Secretary of State is wrong. We have pledged to reform the renewables obligation to make it fairer for all kinds of renewables. The current system particularly favours onshore wind and methane, and it needs to be restructured with additional banding to bring on stream a range of other renewables. Nobody in this country can answer the Secretary of State's question, because no one knows the potential contribution of a range of technologies. If the Severn barrage is viable, it will provide 7 per cent. of our national energy needs. If carbon capture and storage can be made to work, it will give a new lease of life to coal-fired power stations. Let us see what renewables can achieve, but let us not rule out nuclear power as a last resort.
	If I go on for too long, I will prevent other hon. Members from contributing, but I will take more interventions in due course. Many of the new plans worldwide are for gas-fuelled power stations, but just because someone builds a gas-fuelled power station does not mean that there will be gas to power it. Indeed, we face a critical imbalance between demand and supply of gas, and some scenarios suggest that there will be enough gas only for one quarter of planned gas-fuelled power stations.
	The global threat of climate change and the imbalance between demand and supply are why Sir Nicholas Stern and Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, are right to say that doing nothing is not an option and why politicians cannot put off difficult decisions for the next generation to deal with. The next Queen's Speech will include a climate change Bill. I am delighted that the Government have finally decided to introduce such a Bill in the light of Sir Nicholas Stern's report, given that all other parties have been pressing for one for some time. As always, however, the devil will be in the detail, and it remains to be seen whether the Bill includes the measures for which we, and others outside this House, have been pushing.
	Although climate change is clearly one of the biggest challenges facing mankind, we must also be concerned about the affordability and security of our energy supplies. That is why in producing our energy reviews our two aims were to reduce carbon emissions and to secure our energy supplies. We have no doubt that we are on the edge of the greatest technological revolution in energy. Three years ago, the White Paper focused on how we can get more out of existing sources of supply. This time, the energy review examines how we can utilise completely new sources of energy supply, which did not seem feasible even three years ago. As a party, we are absolutely committed to renewables achieving their full potential and to a permanent change in energy policy, which will shift from energy sources that produce carbon to those that do not.

Michael Connarty: I would hate to leave such a contradiction in the  Hansard record. A minute ago, the hon. Gentleman praised the idea of a climate change Bill. Last week, the leader of the Conservative party demanded at the Dispatch Box the introduction of a Bill containing a target of a 3 per cent. reduction per annum. Five minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman said that his party does not believe in targets. Is the Conservative party demanding a climate change Bill including a 3 per cent. target, or is it against targets?

Charles Hendry: We want something that can be measured.  [Interruption.] It is simple to set a range of targets. The Government have set targets on carbon so far ahead, because they know that a new Minister will be in charge by then to pick up the pieces and explain why the targets must be changed. If the climate change Bill is to have teeth and to be workable, it must be measurable. Unless we say that we want to achieve a3 per cent. reduction in emissions year on year, the outcome will not be measurable. That is not simply a public relations stunt, which sounds good one day but which, as the Minister for Energy has done recently, involves shifting the target a few years later because it cannot be met.

David Drew: Returning to innovation, all hon. Members support the idea of some form of fusion, because if we are to provide the elixir of affordable energy, it is probably the best bet. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how we can achieve a fusion-based economy without continuing to invest in the nuclear industry, the most likely route by which to achieve fusion?

Charles Hendry: Fusion is one of many technologies that have an extremely important role to play. There will continue to be an incredible amount of scientific investment in that area, which does not have to be connected to investment in nuclear power, and that investment will occur globally rather than purely domestically. We all hope that fusion will play a part, but it is 40 or 50 years away, whereas the critical energy gap is over the next 20 years.
	We would require any sources of electricity generation that produce carbon to purchase carbon certificates. The number of carbon certificates would be reduced every year, so the price of carbon would rise each year, which would increase the attractiveness of investment in renewable sources of energy. Critically, we would set out the number of carbon certificates for 40 years or more to allow people to invest with certainty and confidence.
	Of course, much is already happening that is very encouraging indeed. The move to renewables is no longer driven just by the relatively small group of remarkably committed enthusiasts who have driven the debate forward in recent years. The debate is now driven by some of the largest companies on the planet, and not only those that one might expect. Tesco is investing £100 million in environmental technologies in a bid to halve the amount of energy that it uses between 2000 and 2010. At the motor show, energy-efficient cars—hybrids—formed the centrepiece of every stand, which shows how car companies are driving the debate forward. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) led a delegation to the offshore northern seas conference in Stavanger, where the chairmen and chief executives of every major oil and company were discussing the importance of carbon capture and storage. Business, driven by consumers, is truly beginning to provide joined-up thinking.
	The other key goal must be to secure energy supplies for the future. The public would rightly not forgive us if the Government could not keep the lights on, but this Government are not taking that side of energy policy seriously enough. The gas situation last winter was extremely tight. The Government's recent energy review, however, was almost recklessly optimistic. The margin of spare capacity in our electricity system has fallen, and is set to fall further and faster. For some time we have known that our current nuclear power fleet is coming to the end of its life. Sizewell A and Dungeness A plan to close this year, and a further 7,000 MW of plant will be offline within 10 years, with only one existing station, Sizewell B, open by 2020.
	Recently, the process has been accelerated. This month, British Energy announced that two of its nuclear power stations, Hunterston B and Hinckley Point B, would be shut down after cracks were discovered in the boiler tubes. The company also said that it was investigating a leak in piping at Hartlepool, that Dungeness B has issues with its fuel route, that Heysham 1 has operating temperature anomalies, that Heysham 2 is having work done on turbine bearings, and that Sizewell B is currently undergoing planned refuelling. British Energy therefore had only one nuclear power station, Torness, running at full output.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Charles Hendry: I will make some progress now, and give way to hon. Gentlemen in due course.
	The concern relates not just to nuclear power. The National Grid says that gas consumption has grown by 66 per cent. since 1992, and predicts that it will grow by a further 11 per cent. in the next five years. Some predict that gas will account for 60 per cent. of electricity generation in 20 years, 80 per cent. of which will be imported gas. Half our electricity would therefore depend on imported gas. If we look at some of the countries that will be the main exporters of gas in 20 years, we have every reason to be concerned. While the opening of the Langeled pipeline this autumn will reduce the tightness of gas supplies this winter, the longer-term outlook is much more worrying.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last time that we debated this issue the shadow Secretary of State expressed a much more robust view on the need for a replacement for our nuclear industry? Is he aware that his figures about the growing preponderance of gas and the decline in nuclear make it necessary to address that now if we are to provide that replacement? What do he and his party propose to do?

Charles Hendry: In that area, our policy and the Government's are not a million miles apart. The Government have also said that they will not give subsidies, and that there will be full cost accounting to take care of decommissioning. Therefore, it is not clear what the Government will do in the event that nuclear power companies say, "Sorry, we cannot invest on that basis." We are saying exactly the same as the Government—that those companies will have to invest without subsidy, and on the basis of taking full account of their long-term costs. If they cannot do so, they will not have a future role in the equation. On my understanding, the Government are saying in similar terms that they will not subsidise those companies. If that is incorrect, perhaps the Secretary of State will correct me now. If it is correct, and if those companies do not wish to invest, it is hard to see how, without breaking that pledge, those companies can be made to play the role discussed.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Let us suppose that a generating company were to say to the Conservatives today, "We would like to build a nuclear power station." Would they say, "Go away and come back when we have decided whenever the last resort arises", or would they say yes to that company? The hon. Gentleman has sown more and more confusion as to what on earth the Conservative party's policy is.

Charles Hendry: We have made the position absolutely clear, and I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not understood it. We have said that our clear preference is for renewable sources of energy. However, we will not stop those who wish to invest in new-build nuclear power stations without subsidy. As I shall explain, we will work to make sure that they can operate on a level playing field, because they currently have advantages and disadvantages.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Charles Hendry: We have covered the matter in detail, and I shall make some progress.

Jamie Reed: Policy change.

Charles Hendry: There is no policy change. We have been absolutely clear throughout. We continue to say that our preference is for other forms of energy. Perhaps I should not be surprised that the comment comes from the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed), whose constituents largely work in the sector. We have been clear, however, that we would not stop companies investing their funds if they wished to do so.
	The Government are not adequately prepared for the fact that, by 2015, the electricity generation gap could be 20 GW or 30 GW, which is potentially a third of current peak UK demand. We have only a limited time to push forward the building of significant numbers of new electricity-generating plants. If we are to meet our national targets and international obligations on climate change, those new generating plants must be low or zero-carbon. We accept that nuclear could have a role to play, and we agree with the Government that nuclear represents a source of low-carbon generation that contributes to our energy diversity. We do not agree with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, however, that it should be our first choice.
	We accept that if nuclear is to make a contribution, it should not have a particular advantage or disadvantage. That means amending planning procedures to allow for type and site approval for nuclear investment, just as planning procedures should be improved for renewable and decentralised energy sources. A level playing field also means that nuclear electricity generators will have to be totally transparent about their full lifetime costs. There will be no subsidies or special favours for nuclear. Furthermore, clarity will be needed about the methods and costs of disposing of nuclear waste. A level playing field for nuclear is the most responsible approach to meeting the strategic objectives of carbon reduction and affordable energy security. Too much emphasis on nuclear undermines the scope for realising the true potential of renewables—

Mark Tami: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Hendry: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would intervene on any point, and make the same point as he wanted to make in the first place.
	There has never been a more exciting time for new potential sources of energy. We must give each of the new technologies the chance to prove itself. We need a mindset that every aspect of renewables has a role to play, not an approach of divide and rule, setting one type against another. If we are to reduce carbon emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050, we will need more wind power. We will also need carbon capture and storage and coal gasification. We will need to tackle transport fuels. We must also have more combinedheat and power, and a fundamental shift towards decentralised energy and micro-generation. We will need much greater emphasis on energy efficiency—and, yes, perhaps we will need more nuclear in that mix. On top of that, we will need a range of technologies that no one has yet thought of or managed to develop. If we take out any of those elements, a challenging target becomes difficult, if not virtually unachievable.
	Decentralised energy—generating energy near to where it will be used, and in ways that will not produce significant amounts of carbon—is perhaps one of the great energy ideas of the 21st century. Without changes to the planning rules, however, it is hard to see how it can ever achieve its full potential if it is left to the good will and altruism of developers and builders.
	Thanks to new technology, we might also be on the verge of a new era not just for new sources of energy, but for old sources such as coal. Coal currently accounts for about 28 GW of the UK's generating capacity, making up 37 per cent. of total generating capacity. However, there is no doubt about the environmental threats posed by current coal usage. New methods of exploiting coal, such as co-firing renewable biomass, are a proven and credible renewables technology option. Co-firing could help to make an annual saving of 21.5 million tonnes of CO2. Likewise, carbon capture and storage and coal gasification offer a new opportunity to exploit coal resources while containing CO2 emissions. Even the most serious carbon sources of the past might therefore play a vital role in a carbon-free future.

David Hamilton: I am not going to raise the nuclear question. With regard to CO2 emissions, many developments are taking place, including carbon capture and piping CO2 emissions back underground. What is the view of the hon. Gentleman's party on assisting the development of those technologies?

Charles Hendry: I think that this is one of the most exciting developments in the sector. If it can be made to work, it will transform our energy debate. In the context of our science policy, we need to discuss how to encourage "pull-through". I am not talking just about blue-skies research; I am talking about how projects can be led to the market and made viable. We are keen to work with the industry to establish how we can best achieve that.
	Carbon capture and storage can make a fundamental contribution. We must recognise, however, that so far in the development of renewable energy sources, the system has been too one-sided. The key element is the renewables obligation, which needs to be reformed. The Carbon Trust says that it is inefficient and costly, and has failed to bring on new technologies. In its present form—and the Government say that there will be no changes before 2009-10—it provides a significant incentive for methane and onshore wind farms, but it does so at the expense of other renewables technologies. Indeed, the most recent change undermined the use of biomass in co-firing in coal power stations.
	The renewables obligation does not do enough to incentivise technologies such as photovoltaics and geothermal and wave and tidal generation, and it does almost nothing to stimulate research into technologies that are still at the experimental or prototype stage. If we are truly to spark a green revolution, we need to reform the renewables obligation.
	Even the most enthusiastic supporter accepts that wind power suffers from a problem of intermittency. To compensate for that, we need back-up generation. In addition to a big increase in renewable generation, we shall need to maintain a level of conventional generation, using carbon capture and sequestration, to back up the contribution from wind power at times when demand is high and the wind is not blowing. The Government have no proposals to ensure that such backup generation is built or maintained, and that leaves too much to chance. Instead, we must explore the establishment of a new system of capacity payments to establish the contribution that that would make to ensuring that the lights stay on during times of fluctuating electricity capacity.
	The role of Government is not just to help create new opportunities. Government must also remove obstacles that stand in the way of a vibrant renewables sector. We need to change regulation of the energy market, which may mean reform of Ofgem and making it a primary duty for Ofgem to encourage renewable sources of energy. We must sort out the issues of national grid connectivity. It cannot make sense for the National Grid to be obliged to connect facilities that will still be stuck in the planning system for years ahead of those that have already been approved. Some projects have been given connection dates 10 to 12 years ahead.
	We need to place much more emphasis on energy conservation, carrying the public with us so that they understand the contribution that they too can make in saving energy; and, of course, we must sort out planning. Planning is at the heart of the problems facing energy. Not only would it drag out the construction of a new nuclear power station for years, but it is holding up onshore wind farms across the country, stopping offshore wind from being connected to the national grid, and preventing new gas storage facilities from being built. We do not have the luxury of time on our side. We will work with the Government to develop a better system that takes account of both the vital importance of local democracy and the wider regional and national interest.
	This is a timely but far too brief debate. There has not been a time in over 30 years when energy has been so much at the top of the agenda, or when the opportunities for new sources of supply have been so great. If those opportunities are to be grasped, however, the Government must truly recognise the challenges as well. They must explain how a "cap and trade" system can be established for carbon, and must start a programme to carry the public with us.
	Since 1997 the Government's actions on these issues have lagged behind their rhetoric, but the issues are too important to be made into a political football. We will work with the Government to find the best policies and direction for United Kingdom energy and climate change policy. We welcome today's Stern report, and look forward to working with the Government where there is common ground to develop the best policies for the years ahead.

Geoffrey Robinson: As has been observed by many Members on both sides of the House, this is an apposite occasion on which to debate energy policy, given the publication today of Sir Nicholas Stern's report. That too has been well commented on, and—while extending my personal thanks to Sir Nicholas—I shall make only two further comments. First, it was remarkable in terms of the magisterial and authoritative tone that it brought to a difficult and complex problem. Secondly, I hope that the fervent bipartanship with which it has been received throughout the House will last as we anticipate and discuss the difficult measures that the Chancellor will no doubt introduce to give expression to the points that it makes.
	The omens are not all that good: already we see the official Opposition backing away from the clear statement about the difficult issue of nuclear policy that represented their position when we last discussed it. The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) shakes his head, but what I have said is true. The Opposition have no position whatsoever on the issue. I shall return to the nuclear issue towards the end of my speech, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene then.

Mark Tami: Will my hon. Friend give way, on that subject?

Geoffrey Robinson: It might be easier for me to do so when I return to it. Other Labour Members might also wish to intervene then.
	We understand, of course, why the shadow Secretary of State cannot be present, and we make no comment about that; but he certainly applied an entirely different emphasis from that applied by the hon. Member for Wealden. When the hon. Gentleman talked of replacing targets with something that could be measured, we observed the linguistic contortions. Indeed, the Whips are already descending to try to explain the inexplicable—that is, the absence of Conservative policy on this issue.
	I want to pose a few questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has led us so well through the difficulties that we have encountered in facing up to the problems of obtaining competitive, secure energy and diverse supplies while fulfilling our commitments on emissions and meeting climate change requirements. It was good to hear—although I am not sure that I heard my right hon. Friend correctly—that we may still be self-sufficient overall in energy. The figures in the third of the reference tables provided by the Department are for 2003. That is quite a long time ago, given that we are meant to report to the House on these matters annually. Are there any more up-to-date figures? It would be interesting to know whether we already have a significant deficit in our energy requirements.
	I should also like the Secretary of State to tell us more about the prospects for gas, as and when he can. I should like to know what is happening in the western approaches, as well as to the north and west of the Shetlands. There has been a huge rise in the prices of oil and gas. Is there a chance that they will become increasingly economical? Are the prospects as good as we might reasonably expect? If so, when might we realistically see some entirely new sources come onstream?
	The commitment to maximise renewable sources as far as humanly possible remains in all parts of the House. We are currently extremely well endowed in wind terms in the United Kingdom, in Ireland and off the north coast of Europe. I seem to remember the Secretary of State's predecessor telling us, when he presented the last energy review in 2003 from the Dispatch Box, that we had some 30 per cent. of western Europe's wind resources. That is an enormous potential for us to exploit. It is expensive, of course, and we have a huge task ahead of us in reaching our 20 per cent. target by 2020. As we keep pointing out, that represents a fivefold increase, and we are not achieving such a rate of increase yet.

Mark Tami: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Geoffrey Robinson: I will give way to my hon. Friend on both points in a second.
	Is there anything more that we can do? Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the present 10 per cent. subsidy—about £1 billion a year—for renewables, presumably mainly for wind, will be geared either up or down as we approach 20 per cent.? Is a £2 billion subsidy projected for that stage? We must clearly pay a price for renewables, and I hope that Opposition Members will make up their minds and say that they are prepared to face that price.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend makes the important point that it is a case not just of building new nuclear power stations but of building them to compensate for the stations that will be lost. If we are not to have nuclear power and renewables are to fill the gap, it will be a very big gap to fill.
	What does my hon. Friend think of the Opposition parties? While they talk green, they tend to campaign locally against wind turbines whenever they are proposed—particularly the Tories in north Wales.

Geoffrey Robinson: My hon. Friend, characteristically, hits the nail on the head. As those of us who have campaigned in by-elections and other local elections know, that applies particularly to the Liberals, who are extremely good at espousing policies nationally that they then disown locally. What I think about the Opposition in general is better not said in this House, but on this issue the way in which they have chosen to sit so uncomfortably on the fence will be evident to everybody, particularly to those who have come to the difficult conclusion that we have no alternative but to embark on a replacement policy for the nuclear sector.
	Before coming to that, I want to mention coal and to recall my experience at the Treasury in that context. Not so very long ago—barely six or seven years ago—the Treasury and most Government Departments were intent on closing every ounce of coal-fired generation. I ask my hon. Friends where we would have been last year without the coal capacity that we had. If, as has been suggested, 38 per cent. of generating capacity is coal-fired, what level is projected for that, and over what period? Linked to that, what level of excess capacity do the Government think it prudent to have in the supply sector? Given that it must be a significant percentage, what figure, albeit in broad terms, do they have in mind?
	Those of us who have supported the difficult decision to go forward with the nuclear programme also subscribe to the concept of the level playing field. There should be no subsidy for nuclear, so those in the private sector must come up with programmes that show that this can be done.

Charles Hendry: What if they do not?

Geoffrey Robinson: The hon. Member for Wealden says that it cannot be done, so the Conservatives must be against it. Why do not they stand up and say, "We don't believe in the nuclear option"? Why do not they have the courage of their convictions?

Charles Hendry: I said, "What if they do not?" In other words, what happens if the private sector does not invest on that basis?

Geoffrey Robinson: I understand that it is likely to make proposals that show that it can be done. In any objective and honest assessment, there is no reason why not, given the projections for gas prices and the costs that arise as we get into the more difficult areas of renewable generation. We naturally cherry-pick the best areas for the current situation. The capacity is still there, but as with other areas of supply, as one develops its potential the difficulties of extending it become greater, as, usually, do the costs. The Opposition have not given us a clear statement of their policy, which is what we are aching for. They flunked the issue when they called off their policy review and came out with an interim review, and they have flunked it ever since. It would have been a much happier situation for the whole House if the shadow Secretary of State, who came out as more firmly in favour than we were ahead of the review on nuclear, was here to make their policy clear.

Peter Luff: I am genuinely interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government's proposals on carbon trading, as they stand, are sufficient to achieve commercially viable nuclear power stations.

Geoffrey Robinson: I do not want to make it difficult for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or for my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who will wind up the debate, but I do not know whether the private sector will make proposals on the basis of base load. I am out of date on that concept; does it still apply? I was heavily involved in it during the energy review that was undertaken at the time of my leadership in the Treasury. About 20 or 30 per cent. of energy was called up automatically and maintained on base load. I am not sure whether that is still intended to be the case, or, if so, whether a fixed price will be established for it. I do not think that there would be any element of subsidy, but I am not sure how a nuclear power plant could be operated without it. It is not like a coal plant. Coal is the best fuel to call up in an emergency. It can be flamed up—I think that that was the phrase—very quickly for capacity at peak demand periods. Clearly, nuclear is not suited to that. Gas is less suited to it, although we brought on new gas plants with that guarantee. If there is base load, will it be against a fixed price? If so, and it is a competitive price, it seems to me that the private sector has an assurance against which it can quote and make proposals that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Wealden said, can be made commercially realistic.
	With the new nuclear programme coming on-stream, and ahead of the decommissioning of the existing plants, is it any part of the Government's review to look again at the superconductor arrangement with the French? When we last debated it—I have brought it up from time to time in the House—we were still paying a very stiff premium to the French to have this standby capacity, which we paid for whether we used it or not. Indeed, if we used more than the prescribed minimum capacity that the French would hold available for us, we would pay a super-price way above the basic price to which we were already committed. I should reassure my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not expect an answer this evening, but at some point the House will need to know on what basis the private sector is being asked to quote for a new nuclear programme and whether, or when, we can disentangle ourselves from the very expensive French superconductor agreement. I say that because table 1 in the papers produced for the debate implies that the units of energy that we import are more expensive than those that we export. That does not seem to be good business and could be a reflection of our superconductor arrangement with the French.
	I will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister if he can deal with some of those questions when he winds up, or, if not, in the course of future debates.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If papers have been made available to some Members, I am not aware of what they are and I would very much like to see them.

Geoffrey Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The table that I mentioned uses figures from the DTI's "Digest of UK energy statistics 2005" and "Energy Trends quarterly table 1.3". They have all been published and are available to the hon. Gentleman if he would care to go to the Library and get them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with that point of order so efficiently.

David Howarth: As previous speakers have said, this is an auspicious day to be discussing energy supply, since it is the day on which the Stern review was published, and it has been announced that the Government are to introduce a climate change Bill. Of course, the debate on that Bill will be on its content, not on its mere existence. It is important that we realise what radical changes need to be made in energy policy in order to meet the challenges that Sir Nicholas Stern describes, and any realistic climate change Bill will have to take that into account.
	Climate change must be the first priority as regards energy policy. That means fundamentally changing what Ofgem does and how the market works. For example, in the electricity market, power stations currently come on stream simply because of their cost of generating electricity. That ignores carbon and the climate change consequences of generating electricity in different ways.
	We need to develop a regulatory framework in which Ofgem brings into the electricity generating system forms of generation according to how cheaply they save carbon, not simply how much they cost. That will radically change the way in which the electricity generating system works. It will bring on renewables quickly. It will also create a position whereby gas clearly has an advantage over coal. Although I have great sympathy with the comments of hon. Members who represent mining seats—my grandfather was a coal miner—the coal industry must face up to the carbon consequences of generating electricity through coal. The introduction of such a radical change to the way in which the system works will provide the boost that the coal and generating industries need to introduce technologies such as carbon capture and storage. Coal can compete with gas and renewables only on that basis.

Bob Blizzard: If, under the policy that the hon. Gentleman describes, the nuclear industry stepped up to the plate and could deliver carbon-free energy at a price as competitive as that of offshore wind or solar power, while oil and gas prices spiked or remained extremely high, would he tell it to go away?

David Howarth: I shall explain shortly why Liberal Democrats remain fundamentally opposed to nuclear, although nuclear power could not come on stream in the scenario of a gas spike that the hon. Gentleman describes because of the points that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) made about base load. Nuclear power is fundamentally a base-load technology; it cannot operate economically in a flexible or variable way.

Bob Blizzard: I did not mean a spike in the sense of a sudden surge, but a position in which gas prices remained permanently high.

David Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and I shall explain Liberal Democrats' fundamental opposition to nuclear power later. However, before I do that, I stress that the cheapest, most effective and efficient way to save carbon is through energy saving rather than any specific mode of generating electricity. For that, we must consider a range of policy options, including product standards and building regulations as well as a review of the operation of the energy efficiency commitment.
	In the energy review, the Government were interested in a "cap and trade" system for energy efficiency, whereby the energy supply companies would be under an obligation to reduce the average amount of energy that their customers use. Companies' current incentive is to sell as much energy as possible to their customers. A requirement to reduce average energy use, coupled with the ability to sell any excess to other companies, would constitute an economically efficient way of operating. I am interested to know whether the Government believe that that system will progress from the energy review to the White Paper.
	Other speakers mentioned decentralised energy, and we should realise the importance of that to the country's energy generating system. Combined heat and power and microgeneration at household and district levels have vast potential—they could provide up to 30 or 40 per cent. of the country's electricity requirements. Even when microgeneration and combined heat and power are gas based, their method of producing heat as well as electricity means that they are more efficient in their use of gas than a system of separating a housing heating system from an electricity generating system. Combined heat and power and microgeneration also reduce transmission losses that occur between the power station and the user. Even microgeneration and combined heat and power that use gas produce a massive carbon benefit by effectively doubling the efficiency of its usage.

Peter Luff: Over what time scale does the hon. Gentleman believe that decentralised energy could make the contribution of 30 to 40 per cent. that he mentioned?

David Howarth: I believe that it would take 30 years to reach that percentage, but steady progress can be made towards the target. Much of the progress would be front-loaded because many cheap projects can be introduced much earlier, but it would take place over a generation.
	However, we must make decisions now—not in a generation—about the way in which the national grid works. Decentralised energy works on a different sort of grid from that of the current centralised energy system. The output of nuclear power, which is a base-load system, cannot be varied economically. Decentralised energy requires a different system, whereby power can move both ways and in which the central generating capacity must be enormously flexible to meet the variations in output of a dencentralised energy system. Without that flexibility, a decentralised energy system cannot work. The nuclear option effectively rules out a decentralised energy system. In engineering terms, it is possible to have both systems at once, but that is enormously expensive and such a system could not work economically. The central element of the decentralised system would continue to exist but central capacity would be different from the current base load.

Peter Luff: The evidence that the Select Committee has heard so far suggests that the major impact of decentralised generation would be not on the national grid but on local distribution networks, which are perfectly able to deal with the challenge of micro-generation.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right when small amounts of decentralised energy are on the grid, but when we reach the sort of percentages that I mentioned, a different sort of engineering is needed. We face a problem when the grid needs to be renewed. It works on a 50-year cycle and we are reaching the end of it. We need to make decisions now about the next 50 years. If it were possible to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we would leave the matter for 30 years and then decide. However, we cannot do that because we are in a part of the cycle when we need to decide.
	Our objections to nuclear power remain fundamental. In any scenario, nuclear cannot come on stream for approximately 10 or 12 years, even if the Government lifted many of the planning barriers. The planning period for a nuclear power station is now 17 years. During that time, generating capacity from nuclear tends to come out of the existing system, as hon. Members of all parties have said. Whatever we do in the next 10 to 15 years, we will need energy from non-nuclear sources. Arguments that depend on nuclear suddenly appearing as if by magic to fill a gap in the next 10 to 15 years simply do not answer the question.
	Nuclear power is also expensive and its subsidies tend to be hidden. The nuclear industry tends to present proposals and say that subsidies are not needed. However, after a time, it says, "Our costs and time scales are overrunning but the project is so big and important for the energy generating system that it can't be allowed to fail so you, the Government, must help us." More and more help is subsequently needed. Nuclear power locks itself into the system. It may start without subsidies but they eventually arise.
	When I was first elected, I attended a debate on the Queen's Speech that included a short set of comments on nuclear power. Hon. Members who supported nuclear power pointed to the Finnish experience, where a nuclear power station was being financed purely by the private sector. I was privileged to visit Finland to talk about its nuclear power stations, and I found that, in reality, there were various enormous Government subsidies hidden in its production. It was not really a private sector project at all. In fact, the consortium building that power plant includes among its members the city of Helsinki and a state-owned Finnish electricity company. The project is now way over budget and way over schedule. That, I believe, will be the future of any nuclear programme in this country. It will not be introduced in the optimistic fashion that its proponents contend. Eventually, the nuclear industry will come to the Government and ask for its usual subsidies.

Robert Key: I, too, have been privileged to go to Finland and talk to the Finnish Government and Finnish politicians, trade unionists, engineers and scientists. I have seen the plants and gone down the waste facility that is being built. What the hon. Gentleman describes is, if I may say so, only half the story. What the partners investing in the project are contributing is a 60-year cycle of investment, ending in no subsidy for waste disposal, and the ownership ofthe means of production by the consumers of the electricity produced. That is an entirely different scenario, which does not match what the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell the House.

David Howarth: The two accounts are not entirely incompatible, though the interpretation certainly is. The long-term contracts being granted to make the Finnish project work are partly contracts from the state, because the partners include state entities. In my view, that still amounts to state subsidy. On waste, the 60-year period to which the hon. Gentleman referred is correct, but after that period the Finnish state takes responsibility for waste. Admittedly, a lot of the cost will be borne by the industry, but not all of it.
	Another reason for opposing nuclear has already been pointed out: it will crowd out investment in other forms of energy production, including the large-scale renewable projects such as the barrage and tidal schemes that are currently envisaged. That has also been the experience in Finland: investment in renewables has not flourished since the Government took the decision to go nuclear. Finland's experience is also that energy saving is going into reverse since that decision was taken.
	The next reason for being against nuclear is that it remains a security problem. Nuclear power is the only form of energy that requires its own police force, the only form that is a plausible target for terrorism.

Robert Key: Nonsense.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman says, "Nonsense", but how many terrorists have targeted windmills in the past couple of years?

Robert Key: It would be unwise for the House to discuss security in any depth or detail, but looking globally at the situation, there are numerous examples of terrorism against pipelines, whether oil or gas. It is particularly on account of gas supplies and the vulnerability of the 80 per cent. that needs to be imported that we should opt for a wider, broader base load including nuclear.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the physical infrastructure, but my point is that it is only nuclear whose very technology requires a basic secrecy. Its historical connection with the military, which goes back to the origins of nuclear power, has meant that over the past 60 years it has been incredibly difficult to get any accurate information about the workings of the industry. It is not because the people involved are somehow ill intentioned; it is the nature of the industry itself, which means that it has to be kept secret. That leads on to a further reason against nuclear: it is the only form of energy production that is inherently a threat to civil liberties, requiring a repressive apparatus of the state to maintain it in place.
	The next reason against nuclear is waste disposal. The CoRWM—Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—report does not resolve the problem of nuclear waste at all. Instead, it says that it is a very difficult problem over which it is difficult to gain consent. It argues that we should attempt to get the necessary consent, but whether we will ever reach it, of course, is a very different question.

Jamie Reed: The framework outlined by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week provides a much-needed, long-term policy framework for the management of radioactive waste disposal. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, the problems associated with that disposal are not scientific, but entirely political. I believe that a solution and resolution could be found quite speedily.

David Howarth: There are both scientific and human organisational problems. The scientific problems are connected with geology. In Finland, for example, the only site identified for nuclear waste is a wet granite site and it is not entirely clear whether the geology will work over the envisaged time scales. The organisational problems are connected with the extent to which any depository should be sealed because of the problem of future invasion of the site and removal of the materials. It deals with the very long term, so we have to raise the question whether, in many thousands of years' time, people will be able to find the site and understand what is there. I would argue that those are human problems, not political ones.

Jamie Reed: On that very point, would not exactly the same apply to long-term carbon storage and capture?

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but that technology is inherently a short-term fix to buy us time, though other hon. Members see it as a more permanent solution to the problem of producing energy in a carbon-free way. As the technology now exists—we are still in a state of uncertainty about the different forms of carbon capture and storage—it seems sensible to treat it only as a means towards getting a different energy system altogether in about a generation's time. Fusion power was mentioned earlier; the problem is that fusion has seemed to be a generation away ever since I was a boy. It is always a generation away. Some forms of technical innovation never seem to make much practical progress.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman should visit Culham to see how much progress is being made on fusion. It is no longer a generation away; it is perhaps only half a generation away. There is real optimism that the technical challenge is being met. It may not happen, I agree, but it is looking more likely now than it ever has before. The hon. Gentleman should update himself on the technology.

David Howarth: I would be delighted to visit that site, but I have to say that optimism has been part of that particular technology for a long time. My view is that the nuclear industry in general—covering both fission and fusion—is fuelled more by optimism than by any other fuel.
	I move on to the subject that our debate was originally to be about: the security of energy supply. The Government's problem—it can be seen in the consultative documents—is how to measure security of supply. The Government invited views on how best to measure it in the first place; it is difficult to set a target if it is not clear precisely what is being measured. Security of supply, of course, is not one, but many different problems. In fact, there are at least four different problems, which I should like briefly to mention: resilience, control of resources, diversity and interdependence.
	To deal with resilience first, an energy system is resilient to the extent that it can survive shocks and bounce back. We need to ask questions such as how long it takes to recover and at what cost. It is a question of minimising the permanent losses to the economy and production that can occur from a particular event, and assessing how much it will cost to get back to where we were in the first place. What makes for resilience are elements like decentralisation. A decentralised energy system is inherently more resilient—it can bounce back more quickly and is less injured in the first place than a big centralised system. In that case, when large power stations go out of action, it causes a huge problem, requiring a lot of effort and cost to recover.
	It is also a question of storage, which has been mentioned in relation to gas. The Secretary of State referred to the improvements that followed the recovery of the Rough storage facility, the new pipelines and the liquefied natural gas port facilities. As he said, capacity is not the same as use, so we need some reassurance that the new facilities are being used to the full extent. It is right that, over the coming years, we will need more gas storage. Whatever one's view on nuclear, in the next 10 to 20 years, a lot of the replacement electricity-generating capacity that we are going to have to use will be gas. Whatever happens, it will be CCGT—combined cycle gas turbine—combined heat and power and microgeneration, so the question of increased gas storage capacity will be with us, regardless of our view on those bigger questions.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman talks about resilience, and rightly so, but does he recognise that the resilience of overseas assets, particularly gas pipelines, will be just as important as the resilience of those assets that he is talking about now?

David Howarth: It is true that the resilience of those assets is important. I will come on to another question about overseas assets, which is who controls them. That has been a concern on many sides—who controls the assets and in what circumstances can they be withdrawn from use by the authorities of other countries?
	I want to answer the question about what will happen as the nuclear power stations come out of use, a problem that has been raised on several occasions so far. Those nuclear power stations make up just under 12,000 MW. Already planned are 12,000 MW of gas and 13,000 MW of renewables, mainly wind, to which we can add a small amount of planned CHP plants, again mainly using gas. Those facilities will result, I think, in there being no particular problem of electricity supply in the next period. In fact, the Government say as much in their reply to the Environmental Audit Committee report on energy entitled "Keeping the lights on":
	"the modelling also indicates that in most scenarios, the risk of having unserved electricity demand is unlikely to become substantively higher than today until around 2015. Even then, the amounts of 'shortfall' between demand and supply are likely to be small and could therefore potentially be resolved by some companies voluntarily shifting their electricity consumption from peak to off-peak times in response to price signals."
	Therefore, I do not think that that is particularly a problem.
	However, there are a couple of problems in respect of resilience and gas storage. One is the planning system. A number of hon. Members have raised that. I understand that the Government will make announcements in January on how the planning system can be speeded up in favour of gas storage sites. I find it interesting that the Government are prepared to tear up the planning system in favour of nuclear. As has been mentioned, the consultation on how that will work will close tomorrow. It is interesting to compare what the Government are prepared to do for nuclear with what they were prepared to do for gas.
	I am not particularly sympathetic myself to tearing up the system for either system of energy production, but I think that improvements are possible. The problem is that attempts to impose top-down command-and-control orders on local planning authorities simply lead to resentment. People who feel ignored or bypassed by the system are likely to want to take up any point. My experience as a local council leader is that one day spent in consultation early is worth a week of recriminations later.
	What one sees—there are examples of this going on now—is councils taking up points in rejecting planning applications which are basically cop-out points. The councils themselves are unlikely to believe that the problem really exists. What they are saying is that it is a planning issue; that local residents perceive that there is a problem. That is not a point that it should be possible to use in the law itself, but local authorities are not taking responsibility. They are effectively saying, "Someone has to decide in favour of this but let it not be us. Let someone else take the rap."
	It would be better to change the planning system, so that local communities and people got some benefit from accepting strategic projects. It is noticeable that the CoRWM report talked about exactly that. It was saying to local communities, "If you accept radioactive waste, there will be other benefits for you, so we ask for volunteers to take this deal." The question I put to the Government is: why not have the same system for gas storage or indeed for renewables?
	Another issue that arises in respect of gas storage is the strategic reserve. The energy review rejected the notion of a strategic reserve. The argument against it was that classic Treasury argument that I used earlier in this speech: it would crowd out private sector investment by dulling incentives to cover contracts. That is a fascinating point. One would have thought that, given all the fuss that the Government have made about the security of gas supply and all the points that were made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who speaks for the Conservatives, about the threats from Gazprom, and the uncertainties about where gas will come from, there would have been an entirely different answer from the Government on the question of a strategic reserve—that the Government are much better at spotting political risk than the private sector. But what has happened? Entirely the opposite has happened. The Government have concluded that no strategic reserve is necessary. My conclusion is that one can tell from what the Government decide on the strategic reserve what they really believe about the political risk—that is, the political risk is controllable and the private sector can handle that problem in the normal market way. We have here an example of the Government revealing their preferences by what they do, rather than by what they say.
	The second aspect of the problem of security of supply is control—the ability to command resources outside the market and to have ownership of them. This is the concern about imports. There is a fear of imports—a form of mercantilism is going on here. There is a feeling that we are in a new situation of importing energy and we should all be afraid of the feeling of loss of control. In many ways, it is an unfamiliar and unwelcome feeling, but it is not an argument for nuclear, as 100 per cent. of uranium is imported.
	The best forms of maintaining control are energy efficiency and renewables. The fuel sources for renewables are again entirely under our own control. Wind, wave and tide cannot be taken away by other people. That is why, from a security point of view, renewables are so important. I suppose that one of these days someone will invent rain power and then we will be completely fine.

Jamie Reed: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, if we reprocess spent nuclear fuel, we need never import another gramme of uranium into this country.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting reprocessing nuclear fuel in a way that no one now proposes to do. If we have learnt one thing about nuclear in the past generation, it is that the reprocessing method is not viable economically. I do not think anyone is suggesting going back to it.
	I suppose that it is true to say that other methods of control may be recommended, although I would not recommend them. US policy seems to be obsessed with the control issue. Dick Cheney said in 2001 that the US should
	"make energy security a priority in our ... foreign policy."
	Of course, that led to a policy of autarchy and of trying to maintain obsessive control over the range of energy sources. It may not have been the only reason for the war in Iraq, but I am sure that it was not entirely irrelevant. In fact, one aspect of the nuclear debate that worries me—hon. Members appear to find it so interesting—is that it seems that Britain is going nuclear as soon as the US changes its policy and goes nuclear. I might come to the conclusion that the decision to go nuclear is simply another aspect of the vassal-state attitude of some members of the British Government.
	It also has to be said that the US interest in nuclear also extends to ensuring that its companies receive nuclear contracts from the third world. The interests of Bechtel are involved, I fear—

Malcolm Wicks: I really do not wish to delay the hon. Gentleman any longer—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] He seems enthusiastic about two things—I am enthusiastic about them, too—one of which is fuel efficiency. However, to be fuel efficient one needs some fuel to be efficient with. The only fuel he seems to advocate is renewables. We want a five-fold increase in renewables, but where will the rest come from? The hon. Gentleman is telling us what he does not like, but what diversity of energy mix are the Liberal Democrats promoting?

David Howarth: As I said, whatever one's attitude to nuclear, in the next 15 to 20 years, electricity production will come mainly from gas. I know that some people want a different solution in the short term, but there is not one. That is why gas security is so important, regardless of one's view on nuclear. The proportion of gas used to produce electricity will increase, whether nuclear energy is chosen as a long-term option or not.

Nick Palmer: What's your long-term option?

David Howarth: Well, I have explained the mix that will be necessary, and the hon. Gentleman can read for himself the ILEX report produced for the World Wide Fund for Nature on the subject. If one combines an aggressive energy-saving programme with a wider choice of renewables than we are considering at present, together with combined heat and power, a more efficient way of using gas and a change in the way in which the electricity market is regulated—so that it encourages low-carbon, not high carbon between coal and gas—one can achieve a carbon saving equivalent to what the Government have set out, but without using nuclear.
	The third aspect of security of supply is diversity, and here I come to an important problem with nuclear power. The Government intend that new nuclear power stations will be procured in a group—or a fleet, as it is called—of 10 or more of exactly the same design. They will be ready much more quickly, because it will be necessary to approve only one design, and they will be built by a combined consortium of the major energy suppliers. The problem is that that reduces the amount of diversity in the system.
	Security of supply is achieved by diversifying risk and ensuring that risks are not associated with each other. If the Government have a programme of 10 identical nuclear power stations, they will increase the correlated risk. If anything went wrong with one of those nuclear power stations, they would all be affected. If something were wrong with the design of the plants, they would have to be turned off at once. Nuclear power stations are similar in design, but not identical. Making all the new nuclear power stations identical will lead to the problem the aircraft industry faces—if something goes wrong with a type of aircraft, the whole fleet has to be grounded. That is a fundamental objection to the notion that nuclear power will add to the diversity of supply: in fact, it will detract from diversity.
	Finally, the most important aspect of security of supply—and the one that really works—is interdependence. We need security of supply for those who import power, but there also needs to be security of demand for those who sell it. Russia's problem is not that it intends to use energy supply as a political lever. Its real problem is that Europe is its only serious customer. It needs to diversify its customers. At the same time, we are attempting to diversify the sources of our gas. In Britain, the amount of gas imported from Russia last year was exactly zero—we do not use Russian gas, but the rest of Europe does. By diversifying and turning to the rest of the world for gas supplies, other European countries are worrying the Russians.
	I am concerned that we are developing a sort of Russia phobia in describing the relationship between us, which should be one of interdependence within international trade. However, there are barriers. The obvious barrier to developing an interdependent and free relationship is that Russia and, indeed, Ukraine, are not even members of the World Trade Organisation. Russia also needs internal liberalisation—Gazprom is a state majority-owned company. However, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones and we can hardly lecture the Russians on liberalisation if Europe's market is not liberalised.
	The problem in the European market is not simply a question of the French and the Belgians refusing to liberalise; it is a problem about the relationship between control and interdependence. Regulators and Governments in those other countries are so concerned about the question of control over gas supplies that they think that it is more important than liberalising the market. Last winter, we saw very high prices for gas. British companies were willing to pay those prices, but they could not obtain gas at any price. The reason for that is that the gas was controlled by state-controlled companies in which officials make their careers not by making money for the company, but by ensuring that gas is under the control of their company and Government. We need to negotiate the liberalisation of the European gas market, and the Government are doing so to some extent. However, they need to recognise that the obsession with control—from which we also suffer—is a fundamental problem.
	The first essential step is transparency. If we do not know how much gas is held in other countries, there is little else we can do. Therefore, I urge the Government to get on with that aspect of negotiation.
	The issue of security of supply is not simple, and I have held the House up for a long time largely in an attempt to demonstrate that it is not simple. The Government have adopted several measures that should be praised. Their attempts to encourage better gas storage and the liberalisation of European gas markets are indeed the right way to go. However, we must understand our own position. If it is fundamentally one of worrying about control, we will undermine our efforts to reach the situation of international free trade and interdependence, which will be safest in the long term.

Bob Blizzard: For the past 41 minutes I have listened extremely patiently to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). If he were magically transported to the Labour Benches and were in government and gave that exposition as Government energy policy to an assembled group of leaders of important industries, to people who run hospitals or even to elderly people in their own homes, and that group looked him at him hard and asked whether his energy policy would keep the lights and heating on and keep production going, he would have great difficulty replying yes with conviction. Even if he said yes, they would not believe him.
	Energy debates in the House are usually typified by Members promoting their favourite energy source or one in which they have a long-standing interest. I shall not completely avoid doing that, but I want to begin by saying something with which I hope we all agree: any debate on energy should start with energy saving, where there is so much more that we can do. I very much welcome the commitment and the range of ideas in the recent energy review. An idea that particularly caught my eye was the proposal for real-time information about domestic consumption in people's homes. If people could see how much energy they were using and straight away how much it was costing them, the temptation to save money would be irresistible. I look forward to the development of technology that enables that to happen.
	There are even simpler solutions. Last week, a constituent showed me a utility bill and asked why, if we need to save energy, the initial energy units—the earliest part consumed—cost more than the latter part, or the excess. That person has chosen not to pay a standing charge, but payment of such a charge front-loads the initial units of energy used even more. Why cannot we reverse that process? We could make the early units consumed reasonably affordable and then operate a sliding scale so that the price increased the more that was used, rather than trying to sell people as much energy as possible so that it is cheaper the more they buy. That seems a compelling and simple idea.
	On a larger scale, the energy review urges planning authorities to set ambitious policies for renewable energy. The regional spatial strategy for the east of England actually contained an important renewable energy target, which was included in the regional plan: on-site generation of 10 per cent. renewable energy for new build. Disappointingly, after public examination, the inspector, in his report, removed that target from the regional plan. Will my hon. Friend the Minister look into that, and explain how we can achieve the laudable policies in the energy review if inspectors take them out of regional plans?
	Like me, other Members will have recently received the Energy Saving Trust's 20 per cent. challenge, which I very much welcome. I and many others are happy to sign up to it. I am fortunate enough to have been able to afford to invest in a condensing boiler, but there are many things we can do—changing to energy-saving light bulbs, switching off appliances or not boiling too much water in the kettle. We need to underline that message time and again.
	Members of Parliament can set an example, and it is important that local authorities do so, too. In Lowestoft, we have two large multi-storey car parks. Last week, it was reported to me that the council leaves the lights on all night, even after the car parks have been locked and no one can go in. Apparently, the time switches no longer work so the lights are left on. I was also told that there are fans in one of the car parksthat are supposed to come on only when fumes need to be extracted, but they operate all the time. It is encouraging that members of the public notice such things and report them, but do we have the mechanisms to deal with them? Are local authorities required to carry out proper energy efficiency audits?
	When I led Waveney district council, we had an energy efficiency officer. He was not the most popular officer, but he saved not only energy but a lot of money. I think my council has rather lost its way by not appointing a replacement.

Robert Key: I very much applaud what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does his local authority give any indication in the council tax demand of the amount it spends on electricity for lighting and other purposes? Regrettably, neither my county nor my district council do so. Provision of such information is rare, which is a great mistake. I would love local authorities to provide it—would he?

Bob Blizzard: I completely agree. I have never seen such statements in annual reports, although I have seen lots of others, including those blaming the Government for things—but nothing about energy efficiency and costs. On that point, I looked for guidance in the local government White Paper, which includes some encouraging statements, but they need to be developed further to direct local authorities into the way of energy efficiency.
	Energy debates are often stories about contending energy sources. We have heard some of them tonight, with pro and anti-nuclear speakers. In the past, there have been pro and anti-wind speeches; I remember an Opposition Member describing wind turbines as something from "The War of the Worlds". My contention is basic: we shall need all those sources. In the long term, the world will need all the energy it can find. Although nothing is running out at the moment, in the sense that it is about to disappear, the big story of the past five years is the realisation of the enormous increase in demand from more and more developing countries, which enables us to comprehend more clearly what we always knew: the number of energy sources is finite. We can now see that even more clearly, even though they are not about to run out tomorrow. That has an enormous impact on the price of oil, which has dragged up the price of gas.
	The question we have to address is not which energy source to use—we would be foolish to rule any of them out—but when to use the various sources and what the phasing and the mix should be. The energy review takes a balanced approach to security of supply in those terms. It contains some good instruments for bringing various energy sources to the marketplace, but it is difficult to ensure that those instruments are calibrated exactly so that we achieve the mix we want, although I hope that we have done so.
	The renewables obligation gives us a strong incentive and is worth a subsidy of £1 billion a year. The proposal to tweak it and to bring currently more expensive renewable sources such as offshore wind, tidal and solar closer to the market and make them less expensive to develop is welcome, especially in my part of the country where we are putting a lot into the development of offshore wind. Recently, I was able to take my hon. Friend the Minister for an aerial view of Scroby sands—the first truly offshore wind farm. Afterwards, in Lowestoft, we looked at the country's largest onshore wind turbine.
	The rise in oil and gas prices, along with the provision of better planning procedures and clear policy decisions on waste, make nuclear energy much more possible and more attractive to investors. Developing the EU emissions trading system, by placing a higher value on carbon and including carbon capture and storage, along with the Government's commitment to secure amendment to international treaties such as the London convention, sends a positive signal about carbon capture and storage technology. However, even with those instruments and policies, if the investment flowed only one way, or only one or two ways, and did not give us the mix that we wanted, what could we do? That question still intrigues me.
	The huge problem that underlies all the ways of producing energy in the UK that I have been talking about is our planning system. At present, it is impossible under our planning system to deliver within a reasonable time scale almost any large item of infrastructure, whether for energy or transport, which cannot give investors any confidence at all. Yes, we give everybody a say; yes, we enable interest groups to derail projects; but I am afraid that our current system takes little account of overriding national need, and we are now in a situation of overriding national need in respect of energy generation. Our planning system has dogged wind turbines—both onshore and offshore—grid connection installations, gas power stations and gas storage, and that is before we even address any possible further round of nuclear power stations.
	A few years ago we tried to make some changes through the Planning and Compulsory PurchaseAct 2004, but those of us who wanted change were beaten back. I am pleased that in this debate there has been agreement in all parts of the House that we need to make some changes. Those changes will be a major challenge for the next Parliament. If we are serious about meeting our energy supply challenges and addressing climate change, we will have to revise our planning system so that we can generate sufficient capacity in the ways that we need to.
	I want to look at this issue in an even wider context, because an even bigger issue is staring us in the face in terms of energy policy across the world, and I think that today, with the Stern report, it strikes us between the eyes. If we read all the reports of all the expert bodies, and all the energy outlooks and other scenarios, we find that they all tell us the same thing: whether we like it or not, we will be using fossil fuels for a very long time to come. Whatever we do on energy saving and renewables, and regardless of whether we go nuclear, it is a fact that we will be using fossil fuels for a long time. We need them to keep the lights on. I cannot believe that countries that own them will leave such valuable commodities in the ground and say, "We are not going to exploit them" and, as we know, they will not run out for quite a long time.
	In its report of March this year, our Environmental Audit Committee referred to
	"forecasts which show increasing use over the next 30 years of fossil fuels, especially in developing countries."
	Those forecasts come from bodies even more eminent than that Committee. Let me quote the intergovernmental panel on climate change:
	"Most scenarios project that the supply of primary energy will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels until at least the middle of the century."
	The International Energy Agency estimate of what that proportion would be by 2050 varies between 70 and80 per cent. EU Commissioner Piebalgs in Norway—the conference in Norway in the summer has been referred to—gave the following figures for Europe in 2030: oil supply will make up 34 per cent. of our energy, and gas a further 27 per cent.
	What we are addressing is major fossil fuel use to 2050 and beyond under all scenarios. Yet by 2050, we want to have—and need to have—cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. If we do not do so, it will be too late. If we want to escape the permanent damage of climate change and the environmental and economic disasters that have become even more stark as a result of today's Stern report, we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels as we are currently. The answer that we have to face up to is carbon capture and storage. That is the only way of squaring the circle between fossil fuel use and addressing climate change. I believe that getting on with carbon capture and storage is the most urgent thing that we need to do.
	The Treasury has carried out a recent consultation, and we are looking for a response in the pre-Budget report. In its energy policy, the European Union aims to make fossil fuel plants capable of cost-effectively delivering near-zero emissions of CO2, or to be in a position to include CO2 capture systems by 2020. It set up a fossil fuel power plant technology platform to try to achieve that.
	We learned in Norway in the summer—the Norwegian Energy Minister emphasised it—that it is now a political imperative in Norway to have carbon capture and storage up and running by 2014, so that Norway can begin to use gas to generate electricity. It has never done that before, but now finds that it needs to do so.
	There are some powerful CCS movements, and we in the UK must not duck away from it. The ability to store CO2 in the depleted oil reservoirs of the North sea—therefore recovering even more oil—thereon storing the carbon in saline aquifers, and capturing all that from one of the greatest concentrations of CO2 production in the world, which is around north-west Europe, are better conditions than we could find anywhere. That view was endorsed by the Science and Technology Committee.
	Owing to that situation, the UK has the opportunity to be a world leader in such technology, which could maintain security of supply and tackle climate change. We desperately need to develop and support a commercial demonstration project, and we can do so. For example, BP has been developing its DF1—decarbonised fuels 1 project—linked to its depleted Miller oilfield. It has already invested £20 million. It needs to decide by the end of the year whether to invest £600 million more. It has made it clear that the scheme will require the
	"carbon reduction benefits it brings to be remunerated via policy initiatives and incentives."
	However, it estimates those incentives
	"to be equivalent to or less than those currently available to no-carbon options such as renewables."
	I do not expect the Treasury in the pre-Budget report simply to get out its chequebook and sign an open cheque, and I do not expect BP to do so either, but we have genuinely to take carbon capture and storage forward, and there will be a cost to that. I have seen lots of costs bandied about for CCS, offshore wind, and for nuclear and other kinds of technologies and sources. Carbon capture is broadly comparable to other sources that are more expensive than conventional generation. As we have been reminded today, the costs of doing nothing are far greater.
	I have spoken at length about CCS, but that does not often get a full airing in the House, although I am pleased to learn tonight that more people are talking about it. All the expert reports tell us that the technology exists—that there are no real technological obstacles in the way. I mentioned the IEA. It sees a very important role for CCS in the future, as well as for renewables and nuclear. Climate change is a challenge, but it also produces some opportunities. CCS is an opportunity for the UK, but what we need is some urgency and some decisiveness.

Peter Luff: It is a pleasure to follow the wise and good-natured speech of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), and I was pleased that he put emphasis on carbon capture and storage. Perhaps I am a little puzzled that the Treasury is conducting a review, and not the Minister for Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry, but we look forward to the publication of the pre-Budget report, when it will appear.
	As Members have said, this is an apposite day on which to discuss energy, as the Stern review has been published. I wish to take this opportunity to make a public apology to the witnesses who were due to come to the Trade and Industry Committee this afternoon—the Energy Networks Association and the Energy Savings Trust—to discuss local generation. We postponed their meeting until tomorrow to enable Committee members to participate in this debate. That means that a knock-on apology is required to the council in Woking, where we were due to go tomorrow morning to look at the excellent work that council does on encouraging micro-generation.
	I am a bit constrained in what I can say, as I am Chairman of the Committee, as we are in the middle of producing a couple of reports: one on micro-generation, which I hope will reach a conclusion shortly; and another on security of gas and coal supplies, which we will be reporting on shortly. Nevertheless, I am delighted that we are having this debate and that the Secretary of State indicated that there will be more such debates to come. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), I feel that it would have been good to have a full day's debate, because this is one of the most important issues facing our country.
	Two policies—competitiveness and energy—lie at the heart of the Department of Trade and Industry's agenda. The current Minister for Energy has had responsibility for both energy and pensions in his time, and both are absolutely key issues. They are both hot potatoes, and I should say in a spirit of consensus that energy is currently in very good hands.
	When it eventually appeared in July, the review document—not the precursor consultation document on which it was based—which had the flavour of a Green Paper, was broadly very good. Although it promises a lot more consultation on various issues, it was, on the whole, a very readable and engaging document. I read it through at one sitting, which must make me some kind of sad anorak. However, I should appreciate it if the Minister explained pages 180 to 181, which deal with the consultation and the policy for new nuclear build:
	"On some sets of assumptions, the nuclear case is positive; in others, negative, so a judgement has to be made about the relative weight to be given to the various scenarios. In making such a judgement, it is important to note that probabilities associated with many of the various states of the world are endogenous rather than exogenous, and depend on policy decisions."
	So there you have it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as clear as mud.
	The flavour of our debate should be one of urgency because there are urgent questions to address—relating not just to climate change, but to keeping the lights on—but there is no need for panic. I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking a little longer to get the White Paper out. March is a good deadline, which probably means June in parliamentary language; let us hope that the Department sticks to March. When the Minister came before my Committee, he was a little reluctant to tie himself down to a date. I was glad that, last week, the Secretary of State did and that he repeated that date today. So we will pencil March into our diaries.
	One of my key messages is indeed that we really do not need to panic. Following a seminar two weeks ago on energy and the environment, the director of the Ditchley Foundation, with the help of a group of extremely distinguished experts from around the world and this country—including, I am glad to say, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State—and many others besides, produced a very good summary of the situation. It states:
	"Most participants agreed that there was no particular problem about the supply of energy if the world remained reasonably organised."
	It proceeded to discuss the individual sources, saying:
	"Renewable energy sources would make a contribution, though in the medium term not a huge one".
	That is realistic. It continued:
	"Nuclear energy, while unlikely to become the environmental answer because of its other downsides"—
	that is an interesting conclusion—
	"would form an increasingly important part of the mix if improved technology on safety and efficiency was taken into account. Demand would rise, but in theory there was no shortage of supply. In other words, it was all about reducing carbon."
	There is a lot of sense in that, but in the UK context the challenge is not just to reduce carbon but to ensure investment in new power station capacity in time, as other power stations—not just nuclear, but coal—go off-line.
	In addition to not panicking, three other key messages have come through in other speeches this evening. The spreading of risk is always a good maxim and is absolutely central to the debate about energy supply. However, too much of our policy on carbon emission and the contribution of electricity generation to it has focused on industry. Industry has been made to bear an awful lot of the pain associated with carbon reduction in the last few years, which has an effect on UK competitiveness. Not enough has been done on households and transport—two other key areas for carbon reduction. I hope that, as the Government follow through the conclusions of the Stern report, the burden will be shared rather more equitably than it has been in the past.
	There are two policy instruments that matter and that have already been highlighted in this debate. Whether we are talking about renewables or nuclear, the two key issues are carbon trading—getting a good, predictable price for carbon in the medium term—and planning. Those are the two big games in town in developing an energy policy that will actually survive.
	I had intended to spend some time looking at the gas sector's capacity, but that issue has already been covered quite well in this debate. The bottom line must be that this winter is again challenging, although probably not as challenging as last. After that, the new capacity coming on line—import infrastructure and gas storage—should give us considerable comfort. In the next year or so, such new capacity will include Langeled South, Statfjord Late Life, BBL, South Hook LNG, Dragon LNG, and the expansion of the interconnector and of the Isle of Grain. Also under consideration are Teesside LNG and Canvey Island LNG, which were mentioned earlier, so a lot of import capacity is coming on.
	Of course, we in this country are not used tobeing gas importers—it is a new phenomenon for us. Much of the world has become accustomed to that, however. The run-down of the North sea may have happened a little faster than we expected, but we always knew that it was going to happen. My view is that we should be reasonably relaxed about our dependence on imported gas.
	I turn to some of the major long-term issues arising from last December's report on the security of gas supply. Unsurprisingly, liberalisation of the gas market in Europe has featured very prominently in this debate. I share the view—expressed, I think, by the Secretary of State—that the Commission is working very hard indeed to liberalise the market, but we should not hold our breath for any short-term gains in that regard. There will be a huge struggle between the Commission and the member states, who will want to hang on to their long-term contracts. To hope for some kind of quick fix is to delude ourselves.
	We need to be more honest about the UK market itself, which is not in fact that functional. It is insufficiently liquid because no one is willing to risk selling short. Producers have been scared off by Enron, for example, and professional risk takers such as hedge funds are not interested in a market that is so small. So the UK market is not working very well and will not do so until the European markets have been liberalised.
	I want to say a brief word about the consequences of rising energy prices in the UK. Historically, they have been low, and the recent catch-up is perhaps not that surprising, but painful for many people living at the economic margin. The Government have focused their attention on the impact on pensioners through the winter fuel payment, but the Committee has repeatedly drawn the Government's attention to the fact that other, non-elderly vulnerable groups also need help in dealing with rising fuel prices. I hope that they will have more to say about that.
	In turning to the main issues arising from the Committee's evidence, I return to my point about the spreading of risk. We are being repeatedly told that diversity is security, and that message is very clear. However, the market just will not deliver such diversity without the two changes to which I have already referred: a predictable planning system and a more predictable long-term market structure for carbon pricing. I do not like to add to the embarrassment that I caused my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden during my earlier intervention on him, but I genuinely believe that my own party's proposals on carbon pricing—I am trying to be objective here, as Chairman of the Select Committee—are rather more robust than the Government's. I am delighted that the Government are holding out the prospect of going further. To rely on the multilateral mechanism of the EU emissions trading scheme is a little over-optimistic.
	The Committee recently concluded its work on nuclear power, and the Government responded to its report. I am not sure whether the report has been published, but it is certainly authorised for publication. The Government's response to it is constructive and helpful, even when it disagrees with the Committee. I used to be quite enthusiastic about nuclear, but during our Committee's inquiry I became a little more cautious, although I remain convinced that, broadly speaking, we need to replace our current nuclear capacity.
	I caution against a too heavy dependence on nuclear, however. As has been said, it is comparatively inflexible. It provides base load electricity, and therefore is a price-taker, rather than a price-setter, and, because of large plant size, significant reserve capacity and grid reinforcement is required if the temporary loss of a nuclear plant is not to cause major disruption. That is not mere theory; such disruption has happened. For example, a serious outage affected 4 million people in southern Sweden and eastern Denmark, and blacked out Copenhagen, on 23 September 2003. That was precipitated by the failure of a nuclear generating plant because of a cooling system problem, and it caused subsequent problems for another nuclear plant. In addition, a collapse of the transmission system in the north-east of the USA and southern Ontario in August 2003 required the shutdown of all nuclear plants in the system. There are problems to do with over-dependence, particularly on the larger, more powerful new generation of nuclear power stations that might be introduced.
	I tend to take issue with my party's Front-Bench spokesmen on the subject of our dependence on imported gas. There has been a lot of talk about Russia and I can understand why, but gas from Russia currently provides a very small percentage of the supply to the UK—it is a maximum of 4 per cent. We should bear in mind the other countries that we take gas from; Norway, for example, is not exactly politically unstable. In addition, the North sea will have lots of gas for a considerable time yet. Although it cannot meet our needs—we cannot export gas—there is a lot there, and the point is that it needs to be sold. The diversity of the current import infrastructure, which involves sources from around the world, gives me considerable confidence, and we can be reasonably sure of a continuing supply of gas. I am pushing my luck a bit, because we have not actually considered our report on the subject yet, although we will do so shortly.
	People say, "The pipelines will have to come all the way from Siberia", but it does not work like that. In a particularly interesting evidence session, Gazprom made it clear to our Committee that the gas that it would import to the UK is likely to come in the form of swaps with other gas producers, such as liquefied natural gas cargoes. That is how the system works. For those reasons, I am reasonably optimistic about gas. Norway wants to recoup its investment by sending gas through the Langeled pipeline. The Qatar Government have invested heavily in the facility at Milford Haven, and will want to use it. Gasunie has committed to a 10-year contract supplying gas to Centrica through the Balgzand to Bacton pipeline. All of that does not necessarily mean that there will be no problems this winter, but it does mean that, in the medium term, gas is a reasonably secure source of supply. I would have liked to discuss coal, but in view of the time and the number of colleagues who wish to speak, I will not, except to say that I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to try to explore what is inhibiting the development of the UK deep coal mine industry.
	The Committee is currently investigating the issue of microgeneration, or whatever we want to call it. The term "microgeneration" is curiously unhelpful, because it conveys a sense of producing electricity, and that is only part of what local energy production does. In fact, I think that the most low-hanging fruit is to be gained— apart, of course, from improved energy efficiency, which is the single biggest way in which we can improve our security of supply and meet our carbon dioxide targets; but that is a given, so I will not labour the point—by exploring the issue of heat. I made that point to the Minister when he gave evidence to our Committee. The driver is not the fact that people want to behave in a saintly way and save the planet, much as they may want to, but the rising price of gas, which is forcing people to consider how they can use domestic fuel sources more efficiently.
	Like the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), I am having a condensing boiler installed at home, and work began on it today. That is because I need to save a lot of money on my gas bill, and although a condensing boiler is an expensive upfront cost, there are significant long-term paybacks. Solar water heating presents much greater opportunities than people realise, and I think that the Government's documentation of the payback periods for that are rather pessimistic. There are the mysterious-sounding ground source heat pumps, too. For a long time, I thought that they had to do with thermal energy coming up from rocks underground. I now discover that they work by making a garden into one big solar panel, and as long as the garden is at a temperature above absolute zero, heat will be produced for households. Ground source heat pumps have a particular place in new social housing schemes. Where they are used, pensioners would not have any energy bills for large periods of the year, or possibly at all.
	Too many of our discussions are either/or debates—one has to be in favour of nuclear or microgeneration, and in favour of distributed or centralised systems. That is nonsense. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made it clear in his substantial contribution that it will probably be 30 to 40 years before microgeneration can achieve its potential—we will test the Energy Saving Trust on that tomorrow—so we need to replace the current grid and distribute energy from those more conventional power stations. It is not an either/or debate—we want to spread our risk and do everything else that we can.
	Finally, I am tempted to enter the debate on fusion, about which the Committee is reasonably optimistic. As has been said, optimism is the fuel of much of this debate, but fusion is a serious prospect, providing almost unlimited supplies of energy that can be used to produce hydrogen for the transport sector and so on. Leaving fusion aside, decentralised energy has been described by hon. Members as the 21st-century energy solution. We often reinvent the wheel because, in fact, it is the 19th-century energy solution. We are simply rediscovering our roots—the Minister will be familiar with the parallel, because I suggested it to him when he appeared before the Committee. I live in Worcester, and in 1894 Worcester city council transformed Powick mills on the Teme, adjacent to the bridge where the first battle of the civil war was fought, into a combined steam and water-driven hydro-electric facility. The experimental design was the first of its kind, and electricity from that source provided about half the city's needs until 1902, when Worcester's coal-fired power station came on-stream. Powick—a micro-hydro scheme—continued to generate energy until the 1950s. If I have one criticism of the Government's micro-generation strategy it is the fact that it plays down the potential of micro-hydro schemes in England.They can work there, just as they can in Scotland and in Wales.
	I have spoken for too long. I apologise for detaining the House, as other hon. Members wish to contribute. I welcome our debate, and I hope that there are many more such debates in future on this very important subject.

Michael Meacher: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), whose speeches as Chairman of the Select Committee are wide-ranging, extremely well informed, sound, honest and frank. I want to concentrate on a narrower point, and I will not necessarily come to the same conclusions as he did.
	On the day on which the Stern report on the colossal economic costs of global economic warming is published, it must be stated at the outset that the subject of our debate—the security of energy supply which, as we all accept, is crucial—is only half the debate. The other half is the need to do absolutely everything in our power to prevent climate change and mitigate its effects. Fortunately, the direction of the policies needed to meet both objectives is the same. Approximately 40 per cent. of the UK's primary energy supplies come from gas; 33 per cent. from oil; 17 per cent. from coal; only 8 per cent. from nuclear; and just 2 per cent. from renewables and other sources. That position is not sustainable in the long term. According to a broad consensus of expert opinion, global oil supply will peak, if it has not already done so, in the next five to 10 years, but demand, driven by frenetic growth in China, India and other major developing countries such as Brazil, will result in rising prices, probably in excess of $100 a barrel within a few years. Sharp price hikes will be caused by international events, whether war or terrorism, and by an increasing shortage of spare refinery capacity.
	Furthermore, UK production of North sea oil has long since peaked, and is fast declining at a rate of between 4 and 6 per cent. a year. We are once again in the uncomfortable position of being net importers of oil. We therefore need, as far as possible—I accept that things will not happen quickly—to reduce our dependence on oil, which is a major, if not the major, source of greenhouse gas emissions. Similar considerations apply to gas. Gas prices will certainly remain high, and will steadily rise in the medium to long term. We are net importers, too, of gas which, as has often been said, comes from relatively political unstable countries such as Russia, Algeria, Libya and Iran, so it is not sensible or prudent to allow our dependence on them to increase. Again, we should seek to reduce our dependence on gas wherever possible.
	Coal, by contrast, is an indigenous energy source, and significant supplies will be available in the UK for several decades if not centuries. However, of all the fossil fuels, coal produces the most greenhouse gas emissions, because it is virtually pure carbon. There are two ways in which we can address that, which is beginning to happen. One is by equipping coal stations with fuel gas desulphurisation to meet the requirements of the EU large combustion plant directive. My understanding is that some three quarters of coal power stations are now being equipped with such plant. The other technique—my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) spoke forcefully about this—is the development of new carbon capture and storage. Unquestionably, that technology has promising potential, but it has to be said that, as yet, there is no proven prototype in existence. The essential requirement is that the carbon can be stored indefinitely. That is an exacting and demanding requirement, but we should certainly seek to develop that technology.
	Those limitations, in various forms, on the utilisation of fossil fuels have led the Government to conclude that a new round of nuclear build is therefore necessary to fill the gap as the Magnox and AGR reactors are steadily phased out and the nuclear contribution to electricity generation is reduced, as we are repeatedly told, from about 20 per cent. now to, it is alleged, some 7 per cent. in 2020 or shortly after.
	That argument is flawed on a number of counts. First, the so-called gap is likely to be far less than is alleged. In September of last year, British Energy reviewed the Dungeness B nuclear power station and I understand that it is now investing to extend the life of the power station by 10 years. British Energy is also reviewing six other nuclear power stations for exactly the same purpose. Undoubtedly, some of those will be closed, but it is a reasonable expectation that a number will be invested in to give them some further extension of their life. Similarly, fitting desulphurisation plants to coal station chimneys will also reduce the gap significantly.
	Secondly, nuclear plants—on this point, I disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire; this is a contentious issue—have well recognised disadvantages that are difficult to remedy. In its report at the time of the first energy White Paper three years ago, the performance and innovation unit—the No. 10 strategic unit—calculated that, on its best estimate, by 2020 nuclear would be about twice as expensive as wind power. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. I am saying that that was its calculation.
	There is also the unresolved problem of what to do with the huge and mounting piles of nuclear waste. It is reckoned that, by the end of this century, there will be as much as half a million tonnes of some of the most toxic intermediate and high level waste. In relation to CoRWM, it is true that the problem is more political than technical, but to say that it is political does not get over the problem. The question is, where is the waste going to be stored? Governments from both parties have repeatedly tried to resolve the problem, but it remains, at least at the moment, as insoluble as ever.
	The cost of decommissioning and waste management for existing nuclear plants, let alone new ones if we go down that route, is already calculated by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to be more than £75 billion. That is a colossal figure. It is about 7 per cent. of our gross national product.

Peter Luff: rose—

Michael Meacher: I will gladly give way, but I am simply quoting the statement given by Sir Anthony Cleaver, who is the chair of the NDA. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on that figure, he may.

Peter Luff: I recognise that figure as the cost for the NDA—my Committee actually thinks that it will rise. Although the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, I understand that that figure includes the cost of addressing all the earlier military experimentation. It is the cost of dealing with the total nuclear waste legacy, not just that from power stations.

Michael Meacher: That is absolutely true. The two figures cannot be readily disentangled. The figure that I cited includes the cost of dealing with the early stages of military nuclear development in the 1950s and 1960s. However, even if we do not know the exact cost of dealing with civil nuclear waste, it is still absolutely enormous, and that is quite apart from any consideration of the associated serious terrorism risk. It is true that gas and oil pipelines are probably an even greater hazard, but one cannot deny that nuclear is a target. Moreover, although it is absolutely true that nuclear plants do not generate CO2 when they are operating, the mining of uranium, the milling of the ore and the enrichment, as well as the 10-year building programme of a £2 billion nuclear plant, generate significant CO2 emissions.

Peter Luff: indicated dissent.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is widely viewed to be the case.

Peter Luff: That is the one canard in this whole debate that we should not allow to stand on record. There is a consensus—the view is shared by Sir Jonathon Porritt, for example, who gave evidence to the Select Committee—that nuclear power is definitely a low-carbon source of electricity generation. It might have disadvantages related to security and proliferation, but it is a low-carbon source. The right hon. Gentleman does not do his argument much credit by recycling that rather tired old point.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman took what I said incorrectly. Nuclear is undoubtedly a low-carbon source compared with oil and coal. However, it is often claimed that it is a carbon-neutral or nil-carbon source, but that is not quite true either. The carbon contribution of nuclear reactors is something like 4 to8 per cent., although I agree that that figure is considerably less than that for other fossil fuels.
	There is also a question over the supply of uranium. The UK has no indigenous uranium resources. Due to the enormous demand that is being exerted by China and India, which propose to build 30 or 40 nuclear reactors in the next 20 to 30 years, the supply of uranium might turn out over that time scale to be as insecure and uncertain as that of oil and gas today. One cannot expect that uranium will be readily available indefinitely.
	My third critical consideration, which the Government unaccountably seem to ignore, or at least do not give the attention that it is due, is that there are good reasons for believing that renewables can readily fill the gap without the large downsides of nuclear. Let me give what I hope will be powerful support to that view. Research has been carried out by AEA Technology, which is the former research arm of the Atomic Energy Authority, so one might expect it to have a pro-nuclear perspective. It announced three months ago that 40 wind farms sited off East Anglia's coast could provide a quarter of the UK's total electricity requirements. The report said that the offshore turbines could create the same amount of electricity as 30 conventional power stations. From my point of view, AEA Technology is an unbiased source, so I think that it makes a powerful statement.
	If the Government are going to be serious about the role of renewables in their response to the Stern report, they should give a much higher priority to developing such proposals. Renewables provide only a pathetic4 per cent. of the electricity generated in the UK, whereas the average figure is in the order of 25 per cent. in nearly all other European countries. It is all very well for the Government to say that they have a target of20 per cent.—hoorah, that is wonderful; all power to their elbow—but as we have made such little progress in the past 10 years, it is difficult to credit that we will reach a target that is five times greater than the current position in the next 15 years. I hope and pray that the Government are right, but they will require much more muscular programmes of support than we have seen up to now.

Bob Blizzard: I wonder whether the report to which my right hon. Friend referred was "Sea Wind East". Nobody would be happier than I if such a capacity could be generated off the coast of East Anglia, not least because of the employment prospects for my constituents. We want as big a slice of that as possible, but I do not know many people who believe that we could do that much. We could do a lot and we need to do more, but I am not sure we could do that much.

Michael Meacher: I do not think I was referring to "Sea Wind East", but I will discuss the matter with my hon. Friend afterwards and show him my source. In arguing whether or not such a goal is possible, the key point is what Germany, Denmark and Spain have done. They are the leaders in wind power. Because of our offshore location, we have far greater wind power capacity in the UK than probably the whole of the rest of Europe put together. We are using only a minute amount of it.
	Finally, microgeneration is probably the most promising new technology. The Energy Saving Trust estimates that by 2050 it could provide 30 to 40 per cent.—I am quoting the trust's figures—of the UK's electricity needs and help to reduce carbon emissions by some 15 per cent. a year. That will not happen without a major Government programme of incentives. A major and rapid expansion of renewables, including microgeneration, plus, as other hon. Members have said and I endorse, a major targeted programme of energy conservation to counter the prodigious waste of energy in both the industrial and the domestic sector, is the only assured long-term route to energy security on the scale required, and at the same time it can meet the UK's commitment to a 60 per cent. reduction at least in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which is a bottom line requirement.

Robert Key: My constituents in Salisbury and the towns and villages of south Wiltshire derive almost all their energy from the national grid. Virtually no electricity is generated in south Wiltshire. I say virtually because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), we had micro-hydrogeneration 100 years ago in Salisbury in the town mill. That scheme was replicated in a number of locations up and down the Avon valley and the Woodford valley. Some enterprising people are considering it again, but it can never be of more than marginal significance as a means of energy production. Some people have tried wind energy—wind turbines—on their houses. Some farmers have looked into the possibility of wind turbines on the top of the downs. Fortunately for the sake of the landscape, the Ministry of Defence has intervened to point out that all the low-flying areas are not compatible with wind energy.
	We must ensure that we balance the needs of the fourth largest economy in the world with the global and national objectives and national interests of the United Kingdom. I was delighted when the Secretary of State, opening the debate, spoke of the compatibility of being pro-growth and pro-green. I was delighted that in his speech from the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) spoke ofthe common ground and the fact that energy was top of the agenda. I was less impressed by the contribution from the Liberal Democrats, notwithstanding the fact that they have a distinguished fellow of my college in Cambridge as their energy spokesman. That is an enormous improvement, if I may say so, in spite of his ingenious intellectual contortions in his energy policy—better than previous Liberal Democrat spokesmen, who have always ended up by saying, "We'll rely on wind and renewables and sustainable energy, and if it doesn't work we'll import nuclear electricity from France." There has been some progress.
	On the question of energy supply, the Government have dithered over the past nine years. They have dithered on nuclear, by saying no, then maybe and now yes. To some extent, they have reneged on the dash for gas, which they now think is dodgy in terms of energy security. They have tripped up on planning. In the early years of this Labour Government, they introduced excellent planning legislation, but then they encountered difficulties with their proposals on infrastructure and power stations, which they abandoned. Now they are revisiting those proposals—what a waste of time—and they have failed to meet their targets. It is important, sensible and serious if the Government and the Opposition agree on these issues for the right reasons, but it is dangerous if they agree for the wrong reasons. I hope that the Opposition will not let the Government off the hook.
	One trend running through today's debate is the implication that the price of energy involves only the bill to consumers and industrialists. However, the price of energy is not only an economic cost, because security of supply has a strategic price and renewables have an environmental and distribution price in terms of countryside spoiled by wind turbines and transmission cables marching across the landscape. Wind turbines are by no means carbon neutral when one considers how they are built and how the electricity they generate is distributed. In the economic jargon, we must internalise the externalities.
	The overriding issue, which we must all take as a given regardless of which kind of generation we are considering, is safety. If one examines risk and safety in energy supply, whether one starts with wood, coal, oil, gas, wind, renewables or nuclear, one is left with the conclusion that there is always risk and danger. When advanced countries such as Finland have taken decisions, largely for strategic reasons, on renewing and extending nuclear generation, they have taken as a given the baseline of safety. Safety must be dealt with, acknowledged and ensured, because one can move forward on the basis of such a consensus, which is how we should proceed in this country.
	The Government are, of course, responsible for providing security of supply, meeting our environmental objectives, balancing a range of energy sources and maintaining efficiency of transmission. The national grid is based on the 19th-century plans that resulted in a 20th-century distribution system, which is no longer fit for purpose in many cases. We must recognise that point, which is why microgeneration is particularly significant.
	In 1970, the average household had seven electrical appliances; today, the average household has 47—in other words, we are very greedy for energy in this country. As we go out on our pre-Christmas binge for white goods and electronic goods, including plasma screens, which use four times as much electricity as anything else, we should bear in mind that we must examine our own navels. We should also remember that a UK citizen uses six times as much energy as an African citizen. We should examine our energy greed, because we can make a difference globally. We must put that argument to those who say, "It does not matter whether I do something good, because it will not make any difference in global terms." It will make a difference.
	Most hon. Members who have spoken believe that we need nuclear and renewables. I will not repeat those discussions, except to say that I happen to believe that we should invest much more in tidal flow generation, which is one of the great unknowns. If we run down our nuclear from current levels and replace it with gas, it will cancel out all the economies that we can achieve by being more sensible about our use of electricity, heat and transport as private citizens.
	What is the difference between consumers in France, England and Finland when it comes to electricity generation? In France, people do not loathe nuclear electricity. Some 83 per cent. of French electricity is generated by nuclear power, and we know what happens in Finland. We must therefore differentiate base-led generation, embedded generation plans for CHP on a slighter larger industrial scale and the sort of microgeneration through which we can all make a major contribution.
	It is really important that we grasp the nuclear issue. Having studied nuclear energy for many years, and having visited French, Finnish and British nuclear plants, I have come to the conclusion that we need another generation of fission capacity. Nuclear fusion is the future. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I have seen what is going on at Culham and examined the international thermo-nuclear experimental reactor project, which could result in zero radioactive waste if we have a fusion revolution that allows us to develop a hydrogen-based fuel economy for our country and the industrialised world.
	With regard to waste, it is imperative to distinguish the historical legacy of the defence nuclear industry and the first-time-round, experimental trialling of the early British civil nuclear programme from what might be produced in future. The two are as different as chalk and cheese. Over 50 years, a technological revolution has taken place. To use scare stories to imply that we must not move forward to a new generation of nuclear fission because of the problem that the Government are now tackling—for which I commend them—is to perpetrate a cruel deception on the people of this country. Of course we must decide on sites for deep geological burial and retrievability for at least 100 years. That technology is developing and improving, and is on trial in Finland now.
	The question of who pays is crucial. Future nuclear industry should not have a tax subsidy. There is no reason why it should. More than 400 nuclear plants are in operation around the world, and others are being built all the time, not just in China and India but elsewhere. The United States has a well proven system of financing for the treatment of nuclear waste for every kilowatt generated. That system is being adopted in Finland. The decommissioning costs must be met from the generation of funds invested for the future, whether privately or by the state.
	All of that is predicated on the continuing availability of the nuclear science, technology and engineering skills base in the United Kingdom. Science education is fundamental, and it is a major lack. I blame the Government for not giving sufficient attention to it over the past nine years. Only this weekend, I saw their television advertisements for science teachers, which are super. What a pity they did not run them nine years ago. What a pity that physics and chemistry departments have closed in our universities. How tragic it will be if we do not even have the skilled engineering manpower to dismantle existing nuclear power stations, let alone build a new generation.
	Education, not just in our schools and universities, but public education about energy supply—whether nuclear, renewable or both—will cost money. Spending by the taxpayer or private energy companies must be transparent and accountable. Money will be spent, and in large quantities. I maintain, however, that if that spending is transparent and accountable, it is not bribery. It is often alleged that if British Nuclear Fuels or anyone else spends money on visitors' centres, school packs or CD-ROMs, it is bribery. We must get away from that silly idea.
	In energy supply debates, I look for consensus between the political parties. The people of this country deserve that. There is a difference, however, between saying that nuclear energy is back on the agenda with a vengeance, and saying that it is a last resort. I hope that I can persuade those on my Front Bench to be a little more positive than they have been able to be. It is interesting that, whereas the Conservative party has said unequivocally that it supports, and will almost certainly replace, our nuclear deterrent, it cannot be as positive about nuclear energy for civilian use. I think that we shall have to move from that position as the argument develops. I hope that we do it with good grace, saying "Yes, we have listened to the arguments."
	The constituents to whom I have talked, especially the younger ones, now take it for granted that we will need a new generation of nuclear facilities. Only two weeks ago, when I addressed nearly 400 sixth-form students in Salisbury, I was asked directly for my view on such a "next generation". I gave my view, and I can only say that it received pretty universal acclaim and agreement.
	We have a generational problem here as well. I think that our electors, particularly young electors, see the virtues of trusting in the science, technology and engineering skills that can secure the future energy supply of the United Kingdom.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the lively, ebullient and typically informative contribution of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key). I have an increasing sense of quality rather than quantity as the evening proceeds, so I shall confine my speech to two basic questions. The excellent speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who chairs the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, left hanging in the air the question of coal, which he said he would have liked to deal with more comprehensively. I shall say a few words about that, and a few words about gas supply.
	It is somewhat ironic that at a time when our major indigenous coal supplier, UK Coal, is down to just five pits in England—two in Yorkshire, Kellingley in my constituency and Maltby, and three in Nottinghamshire, Daw Mill, Thoresby and Welbeck—we should see in the energy review the most positive statement about the future of indigenous coal that any Government have produced for 20 or 25 years. Perhaps it is not surprising, though, because indigenous coal has its attractions for two reasons. One, which has been mentioned a great deal today, is security of supply. According to the Department of Trade and Industry, 75 per cent. of our energy will be imported by 2015. It may not be irrelevant that coal, both deep-mined and open-cast, could provide 8 per cent. of our needs then. If we adopt a wider perspective and look at energy supply across the European Union, we see that a larger proportion of coal than of oil and gas is produced in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
	Price, as well as the attractions of indigenouscoal, was mentioned in the energy review. Last year100 million tonnes of extra coal was demanded, largely in the far east and mostly in China. Russian coal, which we currently import, may be diverted to the far east in the coming years. There is an advantage to British industry, and to Britain as a whole, in indigenous coal supplies.
	I accept entirely that it must be clean coal. We have heard a good deal about that today, notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). He was right to be excited about the potential for carbon capture, but there are other potential technologies. It is important that we provide the right incentives for the development of clean coal. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) mentioned the various plants that would come on-stream over the next five or 10 years. Not many new coal-fired plants are planned. It is important that as we design the next generation of emissions trading schemes, carbon trading and carbon credits, the right incentives are given. In Germany, where there are fuel-specific and technology-specific credits extending over the next 15 years with some certainty, there is increasing investment in clean coal.
	If we overcome that hurdle and reach a stage at which we have some clean-coal capacity, the question will be whether there is any potential for British coal. Like others, I think it will be largely a matter of negotiations between the generators and UK Coal, but I also think that the Government have a role to play, for reasons that I shall give shortly.
	Representatives of coalfield communities are no longer urging the Government to subsidise the coal industry more. About £160 million was put into operating aid and about £65 million was put into investment aid. Over the past 10 years, that was crucial in keeping up the supply of coal and keeping the lights on. Now, however, the coalfield communities are asking the Government to revert to the role of banging heads together. There is a role for Government in doing that. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who played that role at the Treasury in an earlier phase.
	The generators, of which three—E.ON, EDF Energy and Drax Power—count for the purposes of this debate, are all making considerable profits. Drax, in my constituency, makes a return of 40 per cent. on its revenue, largely through the increase in energy prices in recent years. The fact that those three generators are coming to the Government asking for certainty on issues such as emissions trading and carbon credits means that there are levers that the Government can pull. The generators negotiated coal contracts some years ago when the price of imported coal was below that of domestic coal. UK Coal had little choice but to accept those contracts because otherwise domestic coal would have disappeared. Today, the price of coal is much higher internationally. If the generators are serious in their protestations about wanting to maintain some British coal—and it is surely in their interests that domestic coal survives, because otherwise they will be over a barrel in relation to imported supplies of coal and will have much less bargaining power—they must renegotiate those contracts. The Government must recognise, rather more forcefully than the Secretary of State did in his opening remarks, that the energy market is not a perfect market and that they have a role in banging some heads together.
	I want to say a few words about imported gas. We are coming up to the first anniversary of the great price hike in November last year, when gas prices reached about £1.70 per therm. I think of Rigid Paper Ltd. in my constituency, which nearly went under last year because of those price rises. I hope the developments that we have heard about, with new capacity coming on-stream through the interconnector and increased storage capacities, will make a difference. In time, the more robust approach by the European Commission in sending dawn raids into some of the integrated energy companies in France and Germany, which has not happened before, should have a result.
	Nevertheless, the Government could do one or two things to increase capacity further. The planning system has been mentioned an awful lot, and we await further announcements next year. Several gas storage facilities of considerable capacity—Preesall in Cheshire is one of the biggest—are facing public inquiries. There is a case for the Secretary of State to press his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to recover those applications and determine them centrally without going through the public inquiry procedure.
	It is interesting to look at the Government's consultation on gas security of supply, which was published in October. It is a radical document that reveals to the gas supply industry the measures that the Government could be prepared to contemplate if the interconnector and the gas storage facilities that are becoming available are not fully used. It contains some radical suggestions—not Government proposals but matters that they are prepared to consult on, such as the regulation of the use of gas storage for security of supply. It states:
	"The proposal would be to regulate to ensure that levels of gas in storage were kept at their highest possible levels going into, and during the early part of, winter; and that gas from storage was not used to supply the market in preference to other sources of supply."
	There is also the potential for capacity mechanisms in the gas market whereby a body such as the National Grid or Ofgem could be given the job of specifyingthe level of capacity required and put in place arrangements to provide it, tendering for additional storage capacity. Those measures, although probably not directly contemplated by the Government for the time being, are in the background if matters do not improve this winter.
	One step that the Government could take is to insist on increased transparency so that the owners of thegas infrastructure, whether storage capacity or the interconnector, should have a responsibility to advertise well in advance—perhaps by some weeks or months—where there is unused capacity. That could create a secondary market and make the "use it or lose it" phrase used by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report last year a reality. If the owners of the storage and the interconnector do not fully use them, others should have the opportunity to do so.

Stephen Crabb: We all agree that energy security will be one of the dominant political themes of the century. The debate is therefore timely. As someone who is fairly new to the subject, it appears to me that much of the way in which the debate is framed and perceived is incomplete, unbalanced and too alarmist and could lead to some dangerous or unhealthy policy outcomes.
	First, the debate is too concerned about imports. I was interested by the comments of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) about the fear of fuel imports. They were surprising, given the Liberal Democrats' role in Wales in whipping up alarmist worries about imported liquefied natural gas. Nevertheless, he provided an important insight. In the UK, a less than rational fear exists about becoming dependent on imported fuel. In a simple paradigm, imports are viewed as bad, creating dependency and therefore vulnerability, and subject to supply interruptions; and indigenous suppliers are perceived as good and enhancing energy security. That analysis is flawed and too simplistic.
	We should remember that import reliance is the norm for many of our European neighbours. At times, we underestimate the resilience of commercial relationships in overcoming political difficulties. During some frosty periods in the cold war, when millions of men and missiles faced each other across central Europe, gas continued to flow westwards from the Soviet Union to fulfil demand in central and western Europe.
	Algeria was mentioned as a potentially unstable source of imported gas for the UK, yet it has proved a reliable trading partner for many countries that buy its gas. Although an industrial accident happened there a few years ago, causing a possible interruption to its liquefied natural gas contracts, it fulfilled all its gas contracts through swaps and using pipeline gas. We should not fear imported fuel too much.
	The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) asked what would have happened last winter without our indigenous coal industry. It is an important question. I am no enemy of our indigenous coal suppliers, but the upswing in demand last winter was met by imported coal. Suppliers came from Russia, South Africa, Australia, Colombia—literally the four corners of the earth. That does not appear unhealthy to me. Indeed, it enhances security of coal supply. We have a stable and diverse supply base of coal for UK power generation. Surely stability, dependability and diversity of supply are the essence of energy security. I am confident that the same position will emerge in time for imported gas.
	The current energy security debate also focuses too much on political risk. Many risks affect the supply chain. We all witnessed the impact of hurricane Katrina on world oil markets. Risks to the supply chain can come from natural disasters, human error or system error, as happened at Buncefield. There is a range of other risks as well as geopolitical risks.
	Our debate focuses too much on upstream operations and does not assess the full range of risk throughout the supply chain. It is worth reminding ourselves that the last genuinely serious emergency to do with fuel supplies occurred in September 2000 through fuel protests. That highlighted significant vulnerability in this country. That came at the end-point of the supply chain, but we are still overly focused on political risks in the middle east, in Russia and in other countries.
	I have huge faith that the markets will deliver the new capacity to meet the shortfall potentially created by the decline in our indigenous gas, oil and coal supplies. A good example is what is happening with respect to liquefied natural gas, which is bringing a major enhancement to our energy security. There are LNG projects on the eastern coast of Britain at Teesside and the Isle of Grain and also crucially in west Wales with two projects, South Hook and Dragon, which happen to be in my constituency. When fully operational, they have the potential to bring in about 30 per cent. of the UK's gas capacity.
	As an island, the UK is particularly well placed to benefit from LNG import terminals. Does LNG create new dependency arrangements? Yes, obviously. Does it create new vulnerabilities? Not necessarily. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned international trade and hinted that it is all about creating mutual dependencies, which is surely a good thing. The UK's new LNG infrastructure creates new flexibility in our energy system and new opportunities and options that will be an extremely important part of our emerging energy mix in the decades ahead.
	My one area of concern is about storage and the adequacy of our strategic storage capacity. Storage obviously plays a crucial role in helping the nation withstand supply shocks and catastrophic interruptions in supply. It also helps to calm market fears when the markets can see that there is an availability of buffer capacity and a willingness on the part of the Government to use it.
	My concerns relate to a number of questions. First, what is an adequate buffer of emergency stocks? Do we have adequate stocks and, if not, why not? Are there any limitations on the market in delivering the spare capacity that we need? The biggest concern is gas. Ample new import terminals and other infrastructure are being built. and there are some new commercial storage projects in the pipeline—for want of a better phrase—but I am not sure what new strategic storage capacity for natural gas there is. As I understand the current position, we have about two weeks of stored gas supply, whereas the European average is nearer two months. I have no idea what the optimum level should be, but I hope that the Minister and his team are looking into those questions and assessing the level of storage capacity that we need as we become increasingly reliant on gas imports. As imports grow, it is increasingly anomalous that there is no mandatory stocking requirement for natural gas as there is for crude oil and petroleum products.
	My concern with the stocking regime for oil and crude products is partly similar to my concern over gas. The same basic question applies: as we increasinglyrely on imports, how adequate are the current arrangements for ensuring a necessary buffer? On the face of it, things look reasonably healthy and we seem to have no overall problem in meeting our compulsory stocking-up obligations under the relevant EU directive. However, it is also true that over recent years we have struggled to meet our compulsory stocking obligations for category 2 products—diesel, kerosene and aviation fuel, for which there is increasing demand. In three of the past four years, we really struggled to meet the stocking obligations for those products. Furthermore, we currently benefit from a 25 per cent. derogation under the EU directive, as we have been a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products over the past 20 years, but as we move away from that position, the derogation will be phased out. What thinking is going into ascertaining the additional storage that we will need as the derogation is phased out?
	Then there is the question of the extent to which we rely on other countries overseas to help us meet our stocking obligations. Currently, about 15 per cent. of our compulsory stocks held under the EU directive are actually held in foreign countries—a trend that has been increasing, so I would welcome the Minister's thoughts. Does he envisage a prudent level above which we should not go in relying on other countries to hold our strategic stocks?
	Those are some of my concerns. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I am pretty confident about the emerging gas situation and relaxed about energy imports. I have great faith in the markets to deliver a new infrastructure. There are problems around planning, but it is the particular problems surrounding storage that require attention now.

Mark Prisk: Today's debate has been timely and, indeed, informed. The Secretary of State opened by quoting his good friend the Chancellor, who apparently said today that the United Kingdom must be both pro-growth and pro-green—sentiments with which we agree. The Secretary of State went on to talk about gas prices and promised that Ofgem would monitor them very closely. We trust that it will do so, and we will hold him to that promise. He mentioned the fact that the White Paper, which was due, as he said, at the turn of the year, will appear in March. Clearly, climate change is delaying not just the seasons but Government publications.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) gave an excellent commentary on the Stern review. I confess that I have not read every one of the 700 pages of that document, and I trust that it was printed on recycled paper, but what is important is that the summary that we have been able to see in the House is thoughtful and considered. We on the Conservative Benches will wish to look at that with some care. My hon. Friend went on to give a thorough exposition of the emerging technologies for future power generation and how they can help both to reduce carbon emissions and to secure future energy supplies.
	The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) expressed a number of concerns. He had some serious concerns about the slow pace of the Government on renewables, but he is a loyal member of his party and I do not think that he wished to press his concerns too far.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) speaks, I believe, for the Liberal Democrats, and I must say that they got their money's worth this evening. He emphasised carbon-free generation and he was rather sceptical about quite a few of the technologies. He seemed to work his way through a number of reasons for various things not working, including fusion and carbon capture and storage.
	We heard a wide-ranging and interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). He committed himself to reduce his own energy consumption by, I believe, 20 per cent. as part of this week's Energy Saving Trust campaign. Good for him.
	I missed the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), which I regret because what I did hear was not only an informed speech but a balanced and excellent contribution, without wishing to embarrass him too much. His contributions show not only that he understands the subject but that he is able to express his points to those of us who are perhaps not as informed. That is one of his great successes. He particularly raised two points, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them: first, the challenge of putting a price on carbon and, secondly, how we sort out the planning system in relation to that.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) set out his anti-nuclear credentials thoroughly and promoted the case for wind farms. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key)—sadly, he is not in his place at the moment—gave a typically robust and powerful case for making technology help to solve the problems in energy. Of course, as always, he is a powerful advocate of nuclear power.
	The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) wanted clean-coal technology to be given a chance. I suspect that the Minister listened carefully to his remarks. Last and by no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) did a rare thing: he sat and listened to the debate and gave an intelligent and carefully reasoned response to the contributions of others. It was an excellent contribution and I am sure that it is one that the authorities have noted with care—that has got him worried now.
	Securing our national energy supply is, of course, going to be, as we have heard, one of the most significant challenges for this and future Governments. It is both an international and a domestic challenge. Internationally, the picture is one of growth in global demand outstripping supply, compounded by significant political risks in the energy-rich regions of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, last year alone the world's population grew by over 74 million people—that is 1 per cent. in 12 months. Meanwhile, the use of fossil fuels grows even faster—up 1.3 per cent. for oil, 3.3 per cent. for gas and 6.3 per cent. for coal. Looking further ahead, oil demand is predicted to reach 120 million barrels a day by 2025. China's demand alone will triple by then, never mind the impact of India or other rapidly advancing countries.
	Unfortunately, just as demand for energy is rising, so the levels of political uncertainty have increased. It is, as some have said, a rich irony that the easiest to reach supplies of fuel happen to be located in some of the most difficult areas politically. Geology and politics seem to have conspired against us. For example, today 58 per cent. of China's oil imports come from the middle east, and that is expected to rise to 70 per cent. by 2015. Thus the new engine of global growth is hugely dependent on the stability of the middle east. What happens will affect us all. Nor should we ignore the transit countries through which the gas must flow, or the sea lanes through which the oil must be shipped. Choke points include the straits of Hormuz, the Panama canal and the Bab el Mandeb strait, at the entrance to the Red sea. The security of those transit routes and oil refineries will affect our energy supplies now and in the future. Ironically, it was Osama bin Laden who recently called oil refineries the "hinges" of the world economy. We must ensure that they remain open.
	It is that international combination of economic and geopolitical risks that has changed the debate about supplying our future energy needs. The recent surge in demand for gas—and the accompanying soaring gas prices—is a symptom of what we face.
	The truth is that in the UK the margin of spare capacity in our system has narrowed in recent years and, as we have heard today, is set to shrink further and faster. We have heard from several hon. Members how the current generation of nuclear power stations is coming to the end of its life, leaving just Sizewell B open by the mid-2020s. The recent news about Hinkley Point B suggests that we may not even have that long. Some experts are predicting that by 2015 up to 30 GW of current generation may be lost—the equivalent of a third of our current demand. Given that, does the Minister still believe that his policies will close that gap? In which year does he expect to see new generation plant first come on stream?
	During the debate we have heard about the need for a comprehensive approach to our future energy supply. We need both to diversify our sources of energy and to ensure that we use it more efficiently.

Michael Connarty: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his line of thought, which I am following, but I anticipated that he would tell us about the Opposition's policies on the nuclear question. I am the secretary of the all-party group on nuclear energy. I was anti-nuclear when I entered the House, but the desperate plight caused by climate change has changed my mind. However, the Conservatives appear unwilling to take the step necessary to commit us to rebuilding our nuclear capacity at least to what it was before—some 29 per cent.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman must not have been listening at the beginning of the debate. I am sorry for that, because he usually makes a positive contribution. It is clear that nuclear will have its place, but that will not be first place. We have made that clear, and I do not need to rehearse it any further.
	The Conservatives believe that in seeking to encourage more electricity generating plant, we must ensure that much of that plant uses low-carbon technology. To do that we need to reform—not remove, as the Secretary of State suggested incorrectly, I am sure, earlier—the renewables obligation. That means not relying simply on wind farms, but trying to incentivise a whole range of emerging technologies, including wave and tidal power, and photovoltaics.
	Equally, the Government need to show leadership. They originally set themselves a target of 10 per cent. of UK electricity coming from renewables by 2010. As potential failure on that target loomed, they moved the goalposts to 20 per cent. by 2020. What confidence can we have that they will not repeat that trick? Does the Minister accept that delaying matters by a decade sends the very worst signal about the Government's true intentions? The issue is here and now, and we would therefore urge the Government seriously to consider reforming the renewables obligation actively to encourage the next generation of green technologies. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively about that when he replies to the debate.
	Renewables are not the only answer. We have an open mind about how conventional fuels can be adapted and used; for example, if clean coal technology can be made to work and meet our environmental objectives, it can and should have a part to play in our future generation. The hon. Member for Waveney said that we must use our energy much more efficiently. He is right. The UK is the worst country in Europe for wasting energy, according to the Energy Saving Trust. It predicts that by 2010, unless we curb our current habits, we shall have wasted £11 billion and about 43 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—equivalent to the annual emissions of more than 7 million homes. Given that fact, it is clear that we have a shared responsibility to change bad habits and reduce the energy we waste.
	Greater energy efficiency can benefit us all. Consumers can save their hard-earned money, businesses can reduce their overheads, the environment will benefit from reduced carbon dioxide emissions and, nationally, we can benefit by reducing our overall energy demand and thus our dependency on foreign supplies. That is why in this, energy saving week, and following the lead of the hon. Member for Waveney, I, too, have committed to reducing my energy use by 20 per cent., as have many of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches. When the Minister responds, will he tell us whether he and his Department have also made the same commitment and is it shared across each Whitehall Department and every Government agency?
	For much of the last century, this country has been self-sufficient in electricity generation, but as the debate has highlighted, all that is about to change dramatically. By the Government's own estimate, we could be reliant on overseas resources for up to 80 per cent. of our electricity by 2020. If global demands for energy were static, or the middle east were tranquil and stable, that new possible dependency might not be so concerning, but given the economic and political realities we face, ensuring that our electricity generation is secure requires comprehensive and urgent Government action. As I said earlier, we have a shared responsibility, but the current Government must lead the way.
	The Government need to lead us in becoming energy efficient in our homes and at work. They need to enable the rapid development of renewable technologies, and to remove the barriers to local generation. If we are to fill the gap left by ageing power plants, they need to act quickly by creating the right market incentives. Overseas, they need to forge strategic partnerships with energy-rich nations to secure supplies for future generations in this country.
	The Government should know that if they act promptly and effectively they will have our support and that of the majority of the House. But we need to hear that Ministers understand both the scale and the urgency of the task ahead, and that they have both the strategy and the will to lead the way.

Malcolm Wicks: It is important that the House has a clear and accurate picture of energy supply challenges both in the short and the longer term. We have had a useful debate, with significant contributions not only from Front-Bench Members, but from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), the hon. Member for Mid- Worcestershire (Peter Luff)—the Chair of the Select Committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb).
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the gas supply and demand balance could be tight this winter. However, there have been positive developments. The market has already delivered two major gas import projects and two more are on the way; there will be gas from Norway and the Netherlands and new and expanded routes for gas to come to the United Kingdom—energy diversity in practice. Indeed, looking forward to the next two years, as more liquefied natural gas import facilities are built, the total additional gas import capacity in the UK compared with last year will be the equivalent of about 70 per cent. of Britain's annual gas consumption. That gives an idea of the scale of the investment.
	The Rough storage facility, which I hope to visit on Friday, is back in action and full of gas. Medium-range storage sites are also full. There remains uncertainty about exactly how much gas will flow from the continent. However, I have been working with my continental counterparts to press for action so that more gas flows through the Belgian interconnector during periods of high demand.
	We warmly welcome the hard-hitting actions taken by the European Commission, including, as we have heard, the dawn raids. It has the bit between its teeth on market liberalisation. That is good news for all European consumers, domestic and business, and not just for our consumers here in the United Kingdom. I must emphasise, however, that, under all credible scenarios, supply to domestic customers and other small users will be protected. Vulnerable sites such as hospitals and care homes are also protected. The Government are continuing work to ensure that our contingency arrangements are up to date. We are not complacent; we all know that, in reality, things can go wrong for a range of technical and other reasons, so we always need—and we have—good contingency plans.
	Looking ahead, we expect the gas supply situation in the UK to ease beyond the coming winter. As we have heard this evening, more significant additional gas import capacity and storage facilities are planned for the years ahead. Those are very positive developments, which should ease pressure on future prices. On electricity, the Government are working with the National Grid Company and Ofgem, and we shall keep a very careful eye on developments as we enter the winter.
	I recognise that, although the wholesale gas price for the winter has fallen significantly during the past six months, prices remain uncomfortably high for householders—our constituents—and for many industrial users, not least those who are intensive users of energy. High and volatile energy prices affect the competitiveness of industry. That particularly affects the intensive users. There is a limit to what the UK Government can do on their own. The oil price is a global price. In turn, that drives gas prices. Getting the investment climate right for new import and storage projects is critical to giving UK consumers secure and affordable energy in years to come. The Government have delivered that investment climate; £10 billion-worth of present and planned projects is evidence of that.
	We will bring forward proposals to tackle problems with the planning regime—my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was just one of the Members who talked about the significance of that—to make building new infrastructure for our energy future easier and more predictable. In the domestic market, the Government have targeted action on vulnerable consumers, particularly low-income pensioners who are eligible for pension credit. The Warm Front scheme and similar schemes have made a real difference in terms of energy efficiency; so does £2 billion of winter fuel payments.
	Looking to the longer term, we face two major challenges, as a number of Members have stressed: climate change and energy security. They will become among the defining themes of our geopolitics, our European politics and our national life in the 21st century. Many Members have rightly congratulated the author of the Stern review and his team. That review was published today, and it spells out how important it is for all of us that we take action now to tackle climate change. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has today announced a commitment to introduce Government legislation to set statutory targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That makes crystal clear to industry, and to all of us, the direction in which we will be travelling in coming decades.
	In July, we published the conclusions of the energy review. We set out an ambitious package of measures and further actions, and we are in the middle of a raft of consultations on the policies we need for the long term. They will deliver the low-carbon energy future we need, and deliver secure, and affordable energy supplies, in a world in which we will be less energy self-sufficient.
	On tackling climate change, we signalled that we remain committed to working towards international agreement on stabilisation of temperatures. Within the EU, we are committed to taking that forward through the carbon trading scheme. The Government will secure the future of renewable energy through the renewables obligation.
	All of us have a part to play in being smarter in using energy to help deliver a low-carbon future. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who is Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, rightly emphasised the need for action from all of us as householders to make our homes more energy efficient. As we said in the review, the way ahead is to talk to the supply companies and for them to move away from having a financial interest in persuading us to use more and more gas and electricity, and to become instead energy service companies that can enable us to become more efficient and to reduce energy demand in our homes. That is the discussion that we will be having.
	There is clearly a whole debate to be had on transport, and an agenda to pursue regarding the role that transport must play in helping us to move into better times in respect of carbon.

Robert Key: The Minister is absolutely right to talk about the need to improve building regulations and standards and specifications for heat insulation in our houses. Only last month, I opened an extension built by a small family builder in Salisbury. He told me that he built that extension to his own offices to a standard 10 times higher than that required under building regulations, and at virtually no cost to himself. However, there was no pressure for anybody else to do likewise. Is that right?

Malcolm Wicks: What is right is that we are driving up housing construction standards through the criteria that we are introducing. The homes now being built are far more thermally efficient than those that were built only a few years ago, and that is not the end of the story.
	We have also heard about the significance of electrical appliances. Indeed, it was the hon. Member for Salisbury who gave us dazzling statistics on the increase in the number of electrical appliances in our homes, which is why we want to drive up standards in electrical appliances and lighting. Through the power of Government procurement, we can make considerable progress. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) challenged the Government on what we are going to do, and compared that with the saintly actions that he pursues in respect of his own carbon footprint. It is our ambition that central Government's own operations will become carbon neutral.

Mark Prisk: The Minister is very generous, but I shall try not to approach sainthood. While he is thinking about what he is going to do, could he examine part L of building regulations? The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) just referred to is that these regulations, which are concerned directly with energy saving, were introduced with barely two weeks for companies in the building trade to put them into practice. That left many companies completely incapable of responding. Could the Minister and his departmental colleagues look at this issue, because frankly, the situation is one of chaos?

Malcolm Wicks: I do not believe that the situation is in chaos. We are making great improvements to housing construction standards, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the relevant Department.
	As I was saying, regarding our own estate, the Government can do much to move toward carbon neutrality.
	Several colleagues talked about the importance of the coal industry. At one stage last winter, 50 per cent. of our electricity was being generated from coal. We have established the coal forum to test the seemingly sensible hypothesis that there should be a future for British coal, given the supply of indigenous coal, and if only we could get a reasonable and proper dialogue going between the generators and the coal industry—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we should not negotiate; we are not negotiators—allied to clean coal technology. All of us are committed to that.
	A number of colleagues talked about clean coal technology, and I share the enthusiasm for the development globally of carbon capture and storage, which is absolutely vital. We are ambitious for renewables. Yes, currently renewables constitute only 4 per cent. of our electricity supply, but very significant progress is made every year. We will reform the renewables obligation, as the energy review states, and we are consulting on that. A critic might say that at the moment, it is rather a blunt instrument, in that it promotes one form of technology—onshore wind—and is insufficiently sensitive to those that are at an earlier stage in their development history. That is what reform is about. Because of our commitment to renewables, we will increase the renewables obligation in due course to 20 per cent. That is a very considerable achievement.

Geoffrey Robinson: On the subject of renewables, is my hon. Friend confident that we will even approach the 20 per cent. target if our policies remain unchanged? All Members, of every party, accept the validity of the arguments for the target, and the necessity of meeting it, but we are not making the progress that would reasonably lead us to expect to achieve it.

Malcolm Wicks: The 4 per cent. figure, which seems small, is misleading because, as I said, considerable progress is being made every year. By obliging the supply companies to source 20 per cent. of their electricity from renewables in due course, we can take things forward. The reforms that we will introduce and publish after the consultation on the renewables obligation will enable us to give proper support to marine technology, tidal power, wave power and so on, so that we can ensure diversity in renewables. May I turn, in the final few moments of my speech, to the policies—

Peter Luff: There are 10 minutes left.

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, but I am trying to be energy-efficient.
	May I turn to the views of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition? The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) began by saying that when his constituents heard about global warming, they were enthusiastic about doing something, but that their enthusiasm was allied with confusion. The more I heard him attempt to espouse Tory party policy—his party has a new enthusiasm for the subject that was not evident when his party was in power—the greater the confusion of that policy. That was illustrated in two ways. First, his party's "policy"—I use the word generously, but put inverted commas around it—on nuclear includes the curious idea that nuclear is a last resort, and not one of the preferred options.
	We hope to speed up the planning process for nuclear reactors, should the market come forward with proposals, but reactors are a long-term prospect. I gently ask the hon. Gentleman what commercial companies and investors considering the subject would think of a Government who, rather reluctantly, said, "Well, perhaps, if other things do not quite work out, we might consider them one day, as a last resort"? I do not think that that attitude is impressive, particularly as he acknowledges that most reactors are ageing. It is not a very credible position, it is not very enthusiastic, and it is certainly confused.

Peter Luff: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I will try to help both sides of the House, impartially, wearing my hat as Chairman of the Select Committee. Does he not think that the Conservative party's much more robust proposals on carbon pricing—to which, disappointingly, he has not referred in his winding-up speech—are more likely to deliver nuclear power stations than the Government's rather limp proposals on carbon pricing, although they hold out the prospect of making those proposals tighter?

Malcolm Wicks: My officials have never let me down, so I am sure that if the Opposition had robust proposals, the details would have been put on my desk. I simply have not seen them. We, on the other hand, have ambitions for the European Union's emissions trading scheme. We want it to grow, we want to introduce phase 3 and bring in aviation measures, carbon capture and storage, and we want it to lead the argument in Europe. That represents a robust proposal—and not only for Europe. As colleagues have said, it could be the start of an international emissions trading scheme that Norway, California, and, one hopes, many other states could join. The further confusion—

Michael Connarty: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I did want to point out a further confusion to the Tory party, but first we shall have some clarification from my hon. Friend.

Michael Connarty: The concept of carbon pricing has been raised time and again in meetings of the all-party group on nuclear energy by companies that aspire to build in this country. Will the Minister talk to his officials and find out whether a robust system of proper carbon pricing could be put in place, because such a system could lead the market? I hope that we will take that lead in the market by creating the right conditions for the private sector.

Malcolm Wicks: It is our ambition to develop in due course an international emissions trading scheme. I discussed that with the nuclear industry only this morning. I fully understand the point.
	The second and final way in which I want to help the Conservative party is by asking Conservative Members, with all due respect, as they say on these occasions, to try to think through the logic—or the illogic—of the Tory's party's policy on renewables. I read the documents. The interim findings of the Conservative party's energy review, from 6 July this year, state:
	"We therefore believe it is now vital to give green energy a chance to demonstrate its potential"—
	so far so good—
	"on a level playing field with other sources of electricity".
	It seems to me that that is a non sequitur wrapped up in a misunderstanding. If one really wants to demonstrate the potential, one has to have a mechanism such as the renewables obligation—by all means, a reformed one. If the Conservatives are seriously talking about a level playing field, and they understand the meaning of the term, that must mean, vis-à-vis nuclear for example, abolishing a renewables obligation. I do not know whether that is the policy, but I genuinely think that there is confusion. There is also confusion about nuclear. So, there is more work to be done. Perhaps that work could start in the final minutes of the debate.

Mark Prisk: I know that the Minister lists as one of his recreations occasional white-water rafting and therefore he is used to ducking and weaving, but the carbon issue will not go away. He needs to bear in mind that we have made where we stand on the issue quite clear. He seems to be unwilling to nail his colours to the mast. What about carbon pricing?

Malcolm Wicks: I have talked a great deal about the development of the emissions trading scheme, but I am trying to put it gently to the hon. Gentleman—perhaps the drafting is poor—that the Conservatives cannot have it both ways. A level playing field would either mean everything, including nuclear, being subsidised, presumably at the same level—I do not think that that is their policy; it is certainly not ours—or it would mean abolishing the support to the renewables industry. So, the Conservatives should please think again.
	We have had a useful debate—a long debate at certain stages from the Liberal Democrat Benches. When it comes to the Liberal Democrat's policy, I will not even go there. One needs some energy to be efficient with in the first place. The policy cannot just be energy efficiency. First, bring us some energy—hopefully diverse energy. Those are two of the great issues facing us. I am not as relaxed about energy security and, in the future, a heavy dependency on imports as some of the colleagues whom I have heard today. In the light of a future in which 80 or 90 per cent. of our gas could come from foreign fields by 2020 compared to just 10 per cent. now, we need to be smart about gas supplies, which is why we are consulting, and certainly about storage, but we also need more home-grown energy.
	The useful thing, as a colleague said, is that many of the things that we need to do to save the planet in terms of climate change are the same things that we need to do in terms of energy security: yes, energy efficiency; yes, renewables; yes, clean coal technology, carbon capture and storage; and yes, a green light, if the market can come forward, for a new generation of nuclear reactors. However, there is no one silver bullet or single answer. There is no uranium bullet. Diversity is the name of the game. I am sure that we will return to these issues in the century to come and probably in the weeks to come.

Tony Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
	That Mr David Anderson be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Ms Celia Barlow be added. ——[Tony Cunningham on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

United Kingdom Hydrographic Office

Jeremy Browne: I am pleased to present a petition that was organised by the  Somerset County Gazette. It has been signed by hundreds of my constituents and it expresses opposition to any plans to move the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office away from Taunton. The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office is a world-class organisation with a proud and distinguished history in Taunton. It also provides much-valued employment for about 1,000 people in my constituency.
	The public petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the residents of the constituency of Taunton and others,
	Declares that the petitioners are deeply concerned about the proposals to move the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office from its current location in Taunton.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Ministry of Defence to scrap any plans to move the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office away from Taunton.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
	 To lie upon the Table.

ACADEMY (ISLE OF SHEPPEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]

Derek Wyatt: It is with a sad heart that I have had to call for an Adjournment debate on the mooted academy for the Isle of Sheppey in my constituency. I had many meetings with Lord Adonis, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, before Christmas in which I explained the special nature of the island. I talked the matter through with Graham Badman, the director of education at Kent county council, at the end of December 2005, and I visited Dulwich college, one of the two possible partners, three times between September and December 2005. I met the chairman of the shadow board eight months later in August 2006. The progress on announcing the academy has been too slow and Kent county council's management of the two consultations has been abject.
	Let me give some background to the situation. We have had a single upper secondary school—it is now called Minster college, but it was previously called Sheppey comprehensive school—on the same site on the Isle of Sheppey for the past 30 years or so. Sadly, for most of that time, it has seriously underperformed. It has rarely scored more than 25 per cent. of grades at A to C at GCSE, which contrasts greatly with its counterparts in Sittingbourne—Fulston Manor school, Westlands school and Sittingbourne community college—which have all made hugely impressive strides and score somewhere between 45 and 50 per cent. of grades at A to C, even though they are secondary modern schools. Although that should not be the sole criterion on which a school is judged, I noted recently that Sittingbourne community college's score on added value made it one of the best in the whole of Kent.
	For the past 30 years, the Tories on Kent county council have largely sat on their hands, content to ignore the life chances of the children on the Isle of Sheppey, which is an appalling attitude to our children, their children and their children's children. The Government have, through the building schools for the future programme, promised to rebuild or renew every secondary school in England over the next decade or so. That decision has been applauded throughout the length and breadth of the country.
	None the less, into that mix, the Government introduced six years ago a catalyst for failed secondary schools, called academies. They built on the city academies that were first mooted in 1988. So far, we have had three in 2002, nine in 2003, five in 2004, 10 in 2005 and 19 in 2006. We have ambitious aims of having 200 by 2010. I believe that it will take 10 years for any academy to settle down, but some of the omens are good. Those academies that have replaced failed schools have experienced a 19 per cent. improvement in grades at A to C at GCSE, and there have been other year-on-year improvements. Keeping the status quo of a failed school is not intellectually sustainable.
	The Labour Government have been unbelievably generous to my constituency, especially the Isle of Sheppey. It is hard to recall any significant inward investment to our island between 1979 and 1997, except at Eastchurch county primary school. However, since 1997, we have had a £100 million new bridge, which opened in July. We have also had a £13 million new hospital, just under £2 million for Sure Start, which is now based at Rose street, and UK online centres at Leysdown, Warden bay, Eastchurch and Sheerness. There have also been extensive new building projects at Queenborough, West Minster, Rose street, Danley and Minster college, and we have a new further education college. Earlier this year, we announced £19 million for the Rushenden relief road, so the total spent is nearly £200 million, which is large by comparison with anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have made what I would call the hardware investment. We have put the infrastructure in for the island, so we now need the software, which is much more important. We need to invest in the future generation of our islanders. However, the problem is that unlike the rest of Kent, the island has a three-tier system of schools, including three middle schools. These schools have, by and large, performed well, but when their students have left for the single upper school at Minster college, something happens and their performance drops off considerably.
	In February 2004 KCC initiated its plans for changes to the system on the island, but curiously took a further two years to put them into the public domain. The void between announcing and not announcing has led to a campaign by local people, the Sheppey Parents Action Group—SPAG—to stop any reforms whatsoever. When one examines the evidence, that clearly does not stack up, but one cannot blame them for the action they have taken, such has been the core incompetence inside the Tory executive and the education department at KCC. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether the two talk to one another.
	Notwithstanding the opposition of a single group—I have offered to meet SPAG over the next week or two, after this evening's meeting—I hope that common sense will prevail and that our island parents will see the sense of moving from a three-tier to a two-tier system. I am also hopeful that our three political parties will support such a move and see the sense in working together to make the academy proposals work for the good of our children. I would happily chair a joint committee of county and borough councillors, the head and chair and governors of Minster college, and the head and acting head teachers of the middle schools and their chairs of governors. We want the best for our children, and we are better when we work together. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will say whether he would accept a visit from the group.
	The island feels that it has been appallingly let down and that KCC owes it an apology. Let me explain. First, KCC announced that it would undertake two consultations, one on moving from a three-tier to a two-tier system, and one on an academy. Somehow it persuaded us that we should spend £1.3 million on the consultation. Most of that has been a waste of time. KCC announced the academy consultation first, before the three-tier to two-tier move, then it changed its mind. That confusion has not helped the process or the island come to terms with what the county has in mind.
	KCC then employed a company called Mouchel Parkman. It is not clear to me who carried out the consultation and who agreed those consultants. If it was the Department for Education and Skills, I hope it feels ashamed of itself. If it was KCC, it should stand in the corner and write out 100 times, "We should have done better". If the consultation seems to have fallen between the two organisations, that gives some idea of the confusion out there.
	A glossy eight-page brochure entitled "Proposals for an Academy on the Isle of Sheppey", states on page 6:
	"Autumn and winter 2006: Consultation on the academy. Kent County Council then to consult on moving from a three to two-tier structure."
	The brochure goes on to state towards the end:
	"Key benefits: new modern buildings, high quality teaching, improved student performance and behaviour, £40 million investment in education in Sheppey, no council tax increases."
	It does not say where the buildings are or what they are. It asks our people to make a decision on the academy, not knowing what it is or where it is, before deciding about the move from a three-tier to a two-tier system. It is clearly not beyond the wit of man to move from a three-tier to a two-tier system first and then to the academy. Fortunately, common sense prevailed and eventually the council changed its mind, but when people have waited two years for the plans to be put into the public domain, such confusion at the outset does not help the case.
	How could any parent decide on an academy before voting on the three-to-two consultation? Anyway, how could anyone vote on an academy without knowing what was proposed? How could the academy be imposed on us without islanders having much greater representation on the shadow board, which is chaired by Mr. Ronnie Norman, a non-islander and a former Tory county councillor? There has been no project or public relations management by the education department at KCC or by the shadow board on both consultations. They do not understand the island or its community.
	If I were Roger de Haan risking a million or two of my hard earned money on the academy, or Dulwich college, whose chairman of governors is Lord Turnbull, a recent former Secretary to the Cabinet, no less, I would be seriously considering withdrawing from the fiasco. However, I ask them to take a deep breath and stay the course. We need them and so does the island. We need them to help us up our game by 1,000 per cent. Help us do that. It will be worth the journey. Take the lead. They have so much more expertise that we do not want to lose them; we cannot afford to lose them, nor can the next generation of island children.
	Let me outline a way forward. Let us continue with the three-to-two consultation, but can we put some facts before the parents? The public consultation document, "Planning Sheppey schools for the future", which was provided by KCC, does not include a single fact about A to C grades or a single comparison between island schools and mainland schools. How can parents make a decision? More than 600 children currently travel from the island to mainland schools. We are asking parents to decide whether to keep their children on the island, but how can they do so without the facts to help them decide?
	The Department must join KCC in ensuring that there is a professional project management system in place, which is currently the fatal flaw. Will the Department take a deep breath and halt the academy consultation? Will it reorder the shadow board and reconstitute it with an island business man or woman who knows and speaks for the island as chair? Will it make sure that an equal number of islanders and non-islanders are represented on the board? As I have said, a full-time project management and public relations team should be appointed to work with the new board. We should go back to square one and analyse whether the £40 million on offer is enough to rebuild secondary education on the island.
	The system is currently back to front. How can we decide which are the best options when they are not on offer and have not been costed? It is not clear whether the Department agreed the £40 million figure on the back of a cigarette packet. The calculations should be in the public domain so we know what KCC originally proposed. Before the board recommences its work, it needs to put into the public domain the underlying philosophy behind why an academy is necessary. The issue should be about offering excellence to our children and choice for parents, and the options should be increased at each level of education. Given today's announcements on carbon, perhaps a carbon-neutral assessment is needed, too. A detailed analysis of footfall and car journeys should be conducted for each and every option, all of which should be fully costed.
	To my mind, there are several options. The first option is a federated academy comprising three 11-to-16 schools at Chenyne, St. George's and Danley and a twin-site, newly combined sixth form at Sheppey and Minster colleges. The second option is a federated 11-to-16 academy at Cheyne, Danley and Minister college, and a twin-site, newly combined 16-to-19 centre at Sheppey and Minister colleges. The third option is a federated 11-to-14 academy at Cheyne and Danley, and 14-to-18 provision at Minster college. The fourth option is a single site academy at Minster college of 3,000 students, which would be madness but should at least be costed. Such a site would lead to the sale of Cheyne and Danley schools, which would decimate the communities of Sheerness east, but let us make sure that any sale of land goes to the academy and not to KCC.
	My preferred choice is three tightly focused 11-to-16 schools with three specialisms. One school would have a boarding element based on the house system at Dulwich college. One of the 11-to-16 schools would house the 16-to-19 centre, which, as I have said, should be a joint venture with Sheppey college, which would allow us to speak with one voice at that level.
	We should consider offering three specialisms. Sport and art should be offered at Cheyne, which should include a brand new iconic building on a completely rebuilt Cheyne site. The site backs on to Barton's point, which is owned by Swale borough council, and it would make a good sporting centre for the Olympics. Sheppey has some of the best windsurfing in the world, so a boarding school that could double as an events centre is perhaps worth considering. That is the poorest part of the island, and a 24-hour school would make a difference. It would be exciting if we were to involve the Sorrell Foundation, which would allow local people and local children to be involved in the school's design.
	The Tories at Swale borough council do not recognise sport on the island. Already, the local football league has asked its players and friends not to vote for Tory candidates in the May elections given the cost of renting a football pitch. Sport matters on the island, and we are fed up with the intransigence of the local Tories. A federated academy could be asked to look after all the sports facilities on the island in a trust. We could then introduce NVQs and GNVQs in groundmanship and ground care in our 16-to-19 centre, which would allow us to secure £2 million from the Football Foundation to overhaul sport on the island. Within five years, we would have our own trained staff looking after our pitches, which is why I recommend sport and art at Cheyne.
	We need computer scientists and mathematicians. Abbot Laboratories is one of the world's truly great international pharmaceutical companies. It has its headquarters in Chicago and has a substantial base in Queenborough. We must be able to build a substantial relationship with that company, so that it steps outside its footprint and supports us. One of the schools, perhaps Danley, might then establish a permanent relationship with the company. Whatever happens, given that last year alone 800,000 computer scientists graduated from China, the island must accept the challenge of globalisation and move forward with one of its schools dedicated to the subject.
	Now that we have nearly completed the hard bit of the infrastructure—with Rushington to come—we should provide education relevant to the needs of the population. We need to encourage our boys and girls to turn their business and entrepreneurship potential into wealth for future generations on the island. A partnership with the island business community, and the opening of small workshops on a school site, will offer our children a firmer understanding of the business world and begin to establish our own future wealth generators. That is the exciting prospect of a federated academy. Once we have put our prejudices aside to work for the good of the island's children, the sky is the limit.
	There it is. If the Minister cares to check the record over the past 10 years, and the number of Adjournment debates that I have secured on local matters, he will find, almost without exception, that my judgment has been uncannily accurate. This time, we are not talking about the £200 million of hardware that the island desperately needed back in 1997, to which the Government have generously contributed, but the challenge of India, China, Sweden, Slovenia, Brazil and Russia to future generations of children on my beloved island. I hope that he will not disappoint us and offer mealy-mouthed words and inaction. We urge him to take over the project, reconstitute the management and bring on board some of my suggestions, especially a project management team. He should work with us, not against us. If he takes such courageous decisions this week, we can rebuild confidence in the notion of a federated academy. If not, we may lose the confidence of the islanders and, as a result, KCC and the Government could condemn our island's children, and their children's children, to failure for ever. In my book, that is simply unacceptable.

Jim Knight: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. His concern for his constituents is admirably demonstrated by his detailed understanding and constructive approach to the issue. He is a powerful advocate for his constituents. He will be pleased to know that I also represent a number of islands, including Portland, which has a number of schools and, incidentally, the best windsurfing in the country.
	Before I discuss the process and problems behind the debate, I want to remind the House why an academy is being considered for the Isle of Sheppey. My hon. Friend and I agree that Minster college is not offering young people the standard of education to which they are entitled and that they deserve. Just over a quarter of its pupils get five A* to C GCSE passes, compared with almost 60 per cent. nationally. It was put into special measures in 2004. Ofsted found low expectations, poor behaviour and poor management. As my hon. Friend has said, the school is rejected by many parents, who choose schools further away for their children.
	Other interventions have been tried but have failed to deliver improvement at the school at an acceptable rate. Although my Department does not publish a list of failing schools, it is fair to say that Minster is a school in dire need. That is why the sponsors have asked us to consider replacing it with an academy. The proposal is backed by the interim management at Minster college, who see it as the only way to deliver the radical changes needed.
	Academies are already having a major impact on attainment levels in areas that, like the Isle of Sheppey, have a history of low expectations and low achievement. The good teaching, excellent facilities and motivated pupils deliver real improvements in educational standards. As my hon. Friend suggests, given the legacy of underachievement that academies must overcome, we cannot expect them all to be an overnight success. But we do expect all academies to make steady progress. Most already show dramatic improvements. Results reported by academies already open and offering GCSEs speak for themselves. This year, the proportion of pupils gaining five or more good GCSE passes rose by over 6 per cent., compared with a national average rise of 1.8 per cent. Those successes are repeated at key stage 3.
	I fully acknowledge that the proposal for the Isle of Sheppey is a complex one, with many issues for parents and local stakeholders to consider. It is made more complex by the two consultations mentioned by my hon. Friend—simultaneous consultations on separate issues: building an academy and the broader issue of reorganisation. That would not happen in an ideal world, but I think that I understand how it came about. The academy will be a central part of the overall solution to the problems in the area, and it therefore cannot be seen in isolation. It might have been preferable to consult on the move to two tiers, but that would now delay the arrival of a much needed academy. Moreover, we should not subject pupils and parents to two rounds of upheaval and uncertainty, potentially stretching over several years.
	I know that there are intense and understandable concerns among some parents who want to defend their familiar middle schools, and who fear that an academy on the same site as the existing school will fail to deliver change. To help inform the debate, we need to ensure that people are in full possession of the facts. Parents need to know the subjects that the academy will teach, how it will be governed and what it will offer the local community. The academy's project steering group is working to resolve those questions so that it can provide answers. Parents are not being deliberately kept in the dark; it is simply that the location will have a big impact on what the academy will be able to offer, and the group wants to make absolutely sure that the project will really work. My hon. Friend sketched out some options involving locations, the number of schools and various federated academy models.
	I know that the sponsors are wholly committed to coming up with the best possible project. That, of course, will mean building on the good work that is going on in all local schools, including middle schools. I should add, however, that my ministerial colleagues would not proceed with the academy proposal if the two-tier solution were rejected. It would mean going back to the drawing board instead of taking the action that is needed. If that is the outcome of the consultation, there are other options that we can discuss. I certainly do not want to influence the outcome unduly, but I feel that it is fair to be upfront with my hon. Friend.
	Let me clarify the process of setting up an academy. There are two stages. First the feasibility stage tests the viability of the sponsors' proposal; then the sponsors and the Department enter into a funding agreement. The second stage is the implementation stage, when the vision becomes a reality. This academy is progressing through the feasibility stage. The sponsors have set out their vision and how it will work in practice, from the curriculum to staffing needs. This is also the stage at which site options are surveyed and costed. At present £40 million is set aside for the academy, and the feasibility stage will test that out.
	Consultation and engagement are a crucial part of the feasibility stage. My hon. Friend was very critical of the way in which the local authority has handled its consultation on reorganisation, but that is a matter for the authority. He raised other concerns about consultation. I reassure him that the process is adhering to the standards specified by the Cabinet Office. The entire cost of a feasibility stage for any academy is typically between £250,000 and £300,000, including spending on consultation. The amount spent on consultation is certainly not the £1.3 million that has been suggested by some, although that could perhaps be the full cost of feasibility stage and implementation combined.
	The pamphlet mentioned by my hon. Friend is only the start of a process; it is not the final word. It has already been sent to 15,000 houses, and there have also been public exhibitions and meetings. As my hon. Friend will know, the sponsors have engaged a professional PR company, and they will be arranging focus groups to listen to the views of parents and other interested parties. The consultation will continue until December. If the project is approved, consultation will continue until opening day so that parents and local people have a real voice in the decisions that are made.
	There are many different options for the academy, some of which my hon. Friend mentioned. I agree with him that a single location would not be large enough for 3,200 pupils: that is why the consultation focuses on two preferred options, both involving more than one site.
	As my hon. Friend said, it is very important for the end result to meet the needs of the community, and I appreciate his efforts to secure the best possible solution. He has brought up some important issues and made several interesting recommendations. I understand that he has met the sponsors to discuss those. It seems to have been a fruitful meeting, but perhaps further such meetings are necessary.
	I want to add my own reassurances. This is neither a closed consultation nor a foregone conclusion. All options are on the table and will be considered fairly and transparently. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to work with the steering group to reach a constructive solution. The consultation report to the project steering group and then to my Department is expected in the new year. That report must fully address all the options and make a balanced and honest recommendation. It will also take into account the decision on the move to two tiers. By January, we will know the proposed location for the academy and the way forward on reorganisation. There will be another five months to work up detailed, surveyed and costed proposals.
	As regards my hon. Friend's concerns about project management, I want to reassure him that all academies are delivered through professional project managers using best practice, which guarantees a rigorous process delivering best value for money. However, I hear his criticisms and I will certainly reflect on them and discuss them with departmental officials.
	I genuinely appreciate my hon. Friend's commitment to engaging in and supporting this process through to a successful conclusion, and welcome his determination to find the best solution for his area. I hope that he will keep in touch with me and with my noble Friend Lord Adonis as the project develops. I will take a personal interest in it and would be pleased to meet a delegation led by my hon. Friend, as he requested. If it is clear in the final report that there is local support for an academy and we can answer the various questions that he rightly asked, I am certain that it will deliver radical and much needed improvements for the young people of the Isle of Sheppey. That is something on which we can all agree.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes pastTen o'clock.